m^^&$m^m3&&^$m^
'<:7^?&<:Jfe^^^A?kS&^^7^^^^^7^7^^^^>><:
BOHN'S STANDARD LIBRARY.
ELEGANTLY PRINTED, AND BOUND IN CLOTH, AT 3s. 6D. PER VOL.
ROBERT
N FOSTER.
HIS SON,
Episode on
TRANS-
rson, Esq.
)UTH OF
IFICENT,
!1.
ATED BY
d from the
It.
ORIGINS.
GRIFFITH.
presented to
Xibrar?
of tbe
\Hniver0itp of {Toronto
Bertram 1R.
from tbe boofe0 of
tbe late Xionel Davis, 1R.<L
> WIDOW
111 House. "
F. NOW
ROSCOE.
FOUNDA-
-eopold II.,
nilian.
"ION BY
ED, AND
2. //'
"MARY
MEMOIRS
Complete
OTHER
ND THE
and.
FOSTER.
A.N ATLAS, of 20 fine lar^e Maps and Plans of Marlhorough's Campaigns, being all those
published in the original edition at £12 12s. may now be had, in one volume, 4to. for
>rm 3 vols.)
1 those
10s. 6d.
BONN'S STANDARD LIBRARY,
29. SHERIDAN'S DRAMATIC WORKS AND LIFE. Portrait.
30. COXES MEMOIRS OF MARLBOROUGH. VOL.2. Portrait of Ike Duchess.
31. GOETHE'S AUTOBIOGRAPHY, 13 BOOKS. PORTRAIT.
32. RANKE'S HISTORY OF THE POPES. VOL.2. With Index, and Portrait
of Innocent X.
33. LAMARTINE'S HISTORY OF THE GIRONDISTS. VOL.3. With a Memoir
of Lamartine, and a Sketch of the last Revolution.
34. COXES MEMOIRS OF THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH. VOL. 3.
35. WHEATLEY ON THE COMMON PRAYER. FRONTISPIECE.
36. RANKE'S POPES. VOL.3. Portrait of Clement I'll.
37. MILTON'S PROSE WORKS. VOL.1. Portrait.
38. MENZEL'S HISTORY OF GERMANY. COMPLETE IN 3 VOLS. VOL 1.
Portrait of Charlemagne.
39. MILTON'S PROSE WORKS. VOL. 2. Frontispiece.
40. MILTON S PROSE WORKS. VOL. 3. Portrait of Laud.
41. MENZEL'S HISTORY OF GERMANY. VOL.2. Portrait of Charles V.
42. SCHLEGELS /ESTHETIC AND MISCELLANEOUS WORKS, CONTAINING
Letters on Christian Art, Essay on Gothic Architecture, Remarks on the Romance-
Poetry of the Middle Ages, on Shakspeare, the Limits of the Beautiful, and on the
Language and Wisdom of the Indians.
43. GOETHE'S WORKS. VOL. 2, containing the remainder of his Autobiography,
together with his Travels in Italy, France, and Switzerland.
44. SCHILLER'S WORKS. VOL.4, CONTAINING "THE ROBBERS," " FIESKO,"
"Love and Intrigue," and "The Ghost-Seer," translated by UMftl G. BOH:*.
45. MENZEL'S GERMANY. VOL.3. Portrait of Prince Metternich.
46. SCHLEGEL'S LECTURES ON MODERN HISTORY.
47. LAMARTINE'S HISTORY OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION OF 1848.
Ifrith Frontispiece, containing 6 Portraits.
48. JUNIUS'S LETTERS, WITH ALL THE NOTES OF WOODFALL'S EDITION,
and important additions. 2 vols. Vol. 1, containing all the Original Letters.
49. VASARI'S LIVES OF THE MOST CELEBRATED PAINTERS, SCULPTORS,
AND ARCHITECTS. Translated by Mas. FOSTEK. Vol. I. Portrait.
50. JUNIUS'S LETTERS. VOL. 2, containing the Private and Miscellaneous
Letters, an Essay disclosing the Authorship, and a very elaborate Index.
51. TAYLOR'S (JEREMY) HOLY LIVING AND DYING. Portrait.
52. GOETHE'S WORKS. VOL. 3, CONTAINING "FAUST," "IPHIGENIA,"
"TOKQUATO T.VSSO," and"EGMONT." Translated t.y Miss SWA.NWICK.
With"GOETZ VON BERLICHINGEN," by SIR WALTER SCOTT.
53. NEANDERS CHURCH HISTORY, THE TRANSLATION CAREFULLY
Revised by the RKV. A. J. W. MORRISON. Vol. I.
54. NEANDER'S LIFE OF CHRIST. COMPLETE IN 1 VOL
55. VASARI'S LIVES, BY MRS. FOSTER. VOL.2.
56. NEANDERS CHURCH HISTORY. VOL. 2.
Uniform with his STANDARD LIBRARY, price 3*. 6J.,
BOHN'S EXTRA VOLUMES,
1. GRAMMONTS MEMOIRS OF THE COURT OF CHARLES II.
Boscoliel Narratives. Portrait of Hell Gicynne.
2 St. 3. RABELAIS' WORKS. COMPLETE IN 2 VOLS.
4. COUNT HAMILTONS FAIRY TALES. PORTRAIT.
c7^v&\£^
^t^^^^t^^g^^
HISTORY
PLANTING AND TRAINING
CHRISTIAN CHURCH
THE APOSTLES.
r '
DR. AUGUSTUS NEANDER,
ORDINARY PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF BEHLIN,
CONSISTORIAL COUNSELLOR, ETC.
TRANSLATED
PROM THE THIRD EDITION OF THE ORIGINAL GERMAN
BY J. E. RYLAND. A
LONDON :
HENRY G. BOHN, YORK STREET, COVENT GARDEN.
1851.
Philosoplna quaerit, religio possidet veritatem.
J. PlCUS A MlRANDOLA.
Kein andrer Gott als der Gott der Bible, der Herz zu Ilerz ist.
NIEBUIIR.
LONDON :
K. CLA5T, PRINTER, BREAD STREET HILL.
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE.
ONLY a few words seem necessary by way of preface to the
following translation. It was begun towards the close of
1840; but early in the present year the Translator having
requested Dr. Neander to favour him with any corrections
or additions which he might have made to the second edition
(published in 1838), was informed, in reply, that a third
edition was passing through the press : at the same time, an
offer was most kindly made of forwarding the proof-sheets,
by which means the translation will appear within a few
weeks after the original, in its most approved form.
It may be proper to state, that there were circumstances
which rendered it desirable that as little delay as possible
should occur in the preparation of the English work. This
demand for expedition may have perhaps occasioned more
inadvertencies than the modicum of negative reputation
allotted to literary workmanship of this kind can well afford.
The Translator trusts, however, that he has, on the whole,
succeeded in giving a tolerably correct representation of the
original, though, had time been allowed for a more careful
revision, several minor blemishes might have been removed,
and the meaning of some passages have been more distinctly
brought out.
The Author's great and long-established reputation as an
Ecclesiastical Historian, would render it unnecessary, even if
not somewhat unseemly, to usher in this work with a
lengthened descant on its merits. The impartial and earnest
inquirer after truth will not fail to be delighted with the
marks it everywhere presents of unwearied research, extended
views, and profound piety. No one would regret more than
the excellent author, if the freedom of his inquiries should
give pain to any of his Christian brethren; still his motto
must be, " Amicus Socrates, magis arnica VcriUu." He is
completely at issue with the advocates of certain views which
iv TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE.
have lately been gaining a disastrous prevalence in this
country. The decided terms in which he asserts the noble
equality and brotherhood of Christian men, in opposition to
the anti-christian tenet of a priesthood, in the sense not of
religious instructors, but of exclusive conveyers of super
natural influence, l will be little relished by those who would
attempt to share the incommunicable prerogatives of the
" one Mediator." But, as Dr. N. justly remarks in one of
his earlier communications (for all of which the Translator is
glad of an opportunity to express his heartfelt gratitude,)
" the gospel itself rests on an immovable rock, while human
systems of theology are everywhere undergoing a purifying
process, 1 Cor. iii. 12, 13. WE LIVE IN THE TIME OF A GREAT
CRISIS ! "
This translation has been prepared at a distance from those
helps which would have been within my reach at an earlier
period, and soon after a change of residence had separated me
from three friends especially, with whom most of the im
portant topics in these volumes had been submitted to frequent
and earnest discussion. Without the formality of a dedica
tion, my sense of the value of their friendship prompts me to
make this allusion, which is connected with some of my most
pleasing recollections. I wish also to express my obligations
to Dr. Edward Michelson, of the University of Leipzig, who
not only gave up his intention of publishing a translation of
this work, on being informed that I was engaged in a similar
undertaking, but most readily favoured me with his opinion
on various passages during the preparation of the manuscript.
I have received, too, from a friend of Dr. Neander, with
whose name I am not acquainted, the results of a very careful
examination of the first six proof-sheets, which I gratefully
acknowledge, and only regret that the whole work could not
be submitted to his review previous to publication.
(1) By no writers has this error been more ably exposed than by Archbishop
Whately and Dr. Arnold ; by the former, in "The Errors of Romanism traced to their
origin in human nature;" and by the latter, in the introduction to a volume of dis
courses, lately published on "the Christian Life." — "To revive Christ's church is to
expel the antichrist of priesthood, which, as it was foretold of him, ' as God, sitteth in
Ue temple of God, showing himself that he is God ;' and to restore its disfranchised
members, the laity, to the discharge of their proper duties in it, and to the conscious
ness of their paramount importance," p. 52.
J. E. K.
NORTHAMPTON, November 1, 1841.
TO THE RIGHT REVEREND
DR. F. EHRENBERG,
ROYAL CHAPLAIN, MEMBER OP THE SUPREME CONSISTORY,
ETC. ETC.
MY DEEPLY REVERED AND VERY DEAR FRIEND,
I trust you will receive this work with all its defects as the
offering of a sincere heart ; as a small token of my cordial vene
ration and love, and of that sincere gratitude which I have long
felt impelled to express, for the edification I have derived from your
discourses. May a gracious God long allow you to labour and shine
among us for the welfare of his church, with that holy energy which he
has bestowed upon you, with the spirit of Christian wisdom and freedom,
the spirit of true freedom exalted above all the strife of human parties, —
which the Son of God alone bestows, and which is especially requisite
for the guidance of the church in our times, agitated and distracted as
they are by so many conflicts ! This is the warmest wish of one who
with all his heart calls himself yours.
Thus I wrote on the 22d of May, 1832, and after six years I again
repeat with all my heart, the words expressive of dedication, of grati
tude, and of devout wishes to the Giver of all perfect gifts. Since that
rrtion of time (not unimportant in our agitated age) has passed away,
have to thank you, dear and inmostly revered Man, for many im
portant words of edification and instruction, which I have received from
your lips in public, as well as for the precious gift l which has often ad
ministered refreshment to myself and others. Yes, with all my heart
I agree with those beautiful sentiments which form the soul of your
discourses, and bind me with such force to your person. God grant
that we may ever humbly and faithfully hold fast the truth which does
not seek for reconciliation amidst contrarieties, but is itself unsought
the right mean ! God grant (what is far above all theological disputa
tions,) that the highest aim of our labours may be to produce the image
of Christ in the souls of men, — that to our latest breath we may keep
this object in view without wavering, fast bound to it in true love, each
one in his own sphere, unmoved by the vicissitudes of opinion and the
collisions of party !
Let me add as a subordinate wish, that you would soon favour us
with a volume of discourses, to testify of this " one thing that is
needful." A. NEANDEK.
BERLIN, Wihjtfay, 1838.
From the fulness of my heart I once more repeat the wishes and
thanks before expressed, and rejoice that it is in my power to dedicate
the third edition of this work to you, my iumostly dear and revered
friend. A. NEANDEK.
BERLIN, 2d August, 1841.
(1) Alluding probably to a volume of Sermons already published.— TR.
VI PREFACE TO VOL. I.
PEEP ACE TO VOLUME I. OF THE F1EST EDITION.
IT was certainly my intention to have allowed my representation of
the Christian religion and church in the apostolic age to follow the
completion of the whole of my Church History, or at least of the greater
part of it ; but the wishes and entreaties of many persons, expressed
both in writing and by word of mouth, have prevailed upon me to alter
my plan. Those, too, who took an interest in my mode of conceiving
the development of Christianity, were justified in demanding an account
of the manner in which I conceived the origin of this process, on which
the opinions of men are so much divided through the conflicting
influences of the various theological tendencies in this critical period of
our German Evangelical church; and perhaps, if it please God, a
thoroughly matured and candidly expressed conviction on the subjects
here discussed, may furnish many a one who is engaged in seeking,
with a connecting link for the comprehension of his own views, even if
this representation, though the result of protracted and earnest inquiry,
should contain no new disclosures.
As for my relation to all who hold the conviction, that faith in Jesus,
the Saviour of sinful humanity, as it has shown itself since the first
founding of the Christian church to be the fountain of divine life, will
prove itself the same to the end of time, and that from this faith a new
creation will arise in the Christian church and in our part of the world,
which has been preparing amidst the storms of spring — to all such
persons I hope to be bound by the bond of Christian fellowship, the
bond of "the true Catholic Spirit," as it is termed by an excellent
English theologian of the seventeenth century.1 But I cannot agree with
the conviction of those among them who think that this new creation
will be only a repetition of what took place in the sixteenth or seven
teenth century, and that the whole dogmatic system, and the entire
(1) We meet with a beautiful specimen of such a spirit in what has been admi
rably said by a respected theologian of the Society of Friends, Joseph John Gurney ;
" It can scarcely be denied, that in that variety of administration, through which the
saving principles of religion are for the present permitted to pass, there is much of a
real adaptation to a corresponding variety of mental condition. Well, therefore, may
-we bow with thankfulness before that infinite and unsearchable Being, who in all our
weakness follows us with his love, and through the diversified mediums of religion to
which the several classes of true Christians are respectively accustomed, is still
pleased to reveal to them all the same crucified Redeemer, and to direct their footsteps
into one path of obedience, holiness and peace." See Observations on the distin
guishing Views and Practices of the Society of Friends, by Joseph John Gurney, ed.
vii. London, 1834. Words fit to shame theologians who are burning with zeal for the
letter and forms, as if on these depended the essence of religion, whose life and spirit
are rooted in facts.
PREFACE TO VOL. I. VI 1
mode of contemplating divine and human things,1 must return as it
then existed.
On this point, I assent with my whole soul to what my deeply revered
and beloved friend, Steudcl, lately expressed, so deserving of consi
deration in our times, and especially to be commended to the attention
of our young theologians.2 He admirably remarks, " But exactly this
and only this, is the preeminence of the one truth, that it maintains its
triumphant worth under all changes of form ;" and Niebuhr detected
in the eagerness to restore the old, an eagerness for novelty ; " When
the novelty of a thing is worn away by use, we are prone to return to
the old, which then becomes new again, and thus the ball is thrown
backwards and forwards."3
In truth, whatever is connected with the peculiarities of the forms of
human cultivation, as these change, goes the way of all flesh ; but the
"Word of God, which is destined by a perpetual youthfulness of power to
make all things new— abides for ever. Thus the difference existing
between these persons and myself, will certainly show itself in our con
ception of many important points in this department of history, but in
my judgment these differences are only scientific, and ought not to
disturb that fellowship which is above all science. But I can also
transport myself to the standing-point of those to whom these objects
must appear in a different light ; for the rise of such differences is in
this critical period unavoidable, and far better than the previous
indifference and lifeless uniformity. And even in zeal for a definite
form, I know how to esteem and to love a zeal for the essence which
lies at the bottom,4 and I can never have anything in common with
those who will not do justice to such zeal, or, instead of treating it with
the respect that is always due to zeal and affection for what is holy,
with Jesuitical craft aim at rendering others suspected, by imputing to
them sinister motives and designs.
It was not my intention to give a complete history of the Apostolic
(1) Well might the noble words of Luther be applied to those who cling to the old
rotten posts of a scaffolding raised by human hands, as if they were needed for the
divine building. " When at a window I have gazed on the stars of heaven, and the
whole beautiful vault of heaven, and saw no pillars on which the builder had set such
a vault ; yet the heavens fell not in ; and that vault still stands firm. Now there are
simple folk who look about for such pillars, and would fain grasp and feel them. But
since they cannot do this, they quake and tremble, as if the heavens would certainly
fall in, and for no other reason than because they cannot grasp or see the pillars; if
they could but lay hold of them, then the heavens (they think) would stand firm
enough."
(2) In the Tubingen Zeitschrift fur Theologie, 1832, part i. p. 33. Blessed be
the memory of this beloved man, who left this world a few months ago, and is no
longer to be seen in the holy band of combatants for that evangelical truth which was
the aim, the centre, and the soul of his whole life, and the firm anchor of his hope in
death, when he proved himself to be one of those faithful teachers of whom it may
be said — '' whose faith ful low, considering the end of their conversation."
(3) One of the many golden sentences of this great man in his letters, of which we
would recommend the second volume especially to all young theologians.
(4) Provided it be the true zeal of simplicity, which accompanies humility, and
where sagacity does not predominate over simplicity ; but by no means that zeal which,
in coupling itself with the modern coxcombry of a super-refined education, endeavours
to season subjects with it to which it is least adapted, in order to render them
palatable to the vitiated taste that loathes a simple diet ; and thus proves its own un-
soundness. A caricature jumble of the most contradictory elements, at which every
sound feeling must revolt.
Vlll PREFACE TO VOL. II.
age, but only what the title, advisedly selected, indicates. I have pre
fixed to it the Introduction from the first volume of my Church
History, reserving the recasting of the whole work for a new edition,
should God permit.
In reference to the arrangement of the whole plan, and the mutual
relation of the parts of the representation, I must beg the reader
to suspend his judgment awhile, till the completion of the whole by the
publication of the second part.
It will be my constant aim to carry on to its conclusion the whole of
the work I have undertaken on the history of the Church, if God con
tinue to grant me strength and resolution for the purpose. Meanwhile,
a brief compendium of Church History on the principles of my arrange
ment, but enriched with literary notices, will be published. My dear
friend, Professor Rheinwald, of Bonn, having been prevented by his new
duties from executing this work, it has been undertaken at my request
by another of my friends, Mr. Licentiate Vogt,1 already favourably
known to the theological public by his share in editing the Homilarium,
and still more commended to the public favour by his literary labours
on the Pseudo-Dionysius, and the Life and Times of Gerson, Chancellor
of Paris. May he receive from every quarter that public favour and
encouragement which his character, acquirements, and performances
deserve ! 2
A.
BERLIN, 29tt May, 1832.
PREFACE TO VOLUME II. OF THE FIRST EDITION.
I HAVE only a few words to say^in addition to the Preface of the first
volume. The exposition of doctrines which occupies the principal part
of the second half of this work, I was obliged to regulate as to quantity
by the relation in which this work stands to the general history of the
Church, and the proportion which the history of doctrine in the latter
bears to the whole. Hence I have been obliged to leave untouched
many questions which would occur to the Christian theologian, who
develops and -elaborates the contents of the sacred records for the use of
his own times ; my endeavours have been confined to representing
primitive Christianity according to its principal models of doctrine in
its historical development. In executing such a work, every man must
be influenced by his own religious and doctrinal standing-point, by his
views of the doctrines of Christianity, its origin, and its relation to the
general development of the human race. On this point no one can
(1) Now Dr. Vogt, ordinary professor of Theology, and pastor at Greifswald.
(2) This wish for so peculiarly dear a friend, whose personal intercourse, so bene
ficial to my heart, I no longer enjoy, has been fulfilled. But his multiplied labours
will not permit him to accomplish the design mentioned above. Yet if it please God
another of my young friends Avill be found fitted for the task.
PREFACE TO THE SECOND ^DITIOX. ix
blame another for differing from himpelf; for a purely objective
historical work, stripped of all subjectivity in its representation,
untinctured by the individual notions of the writer, is an absurdity.
The only question is, what point of view in the contemplation of these
objects most nearly corresponds to the truth, and from this the clearest
conceptions will be formed of the images presented in history. Without
renouncing our subjectivity, without giving up our own way of thinking
(a thing utterly impossible) to those of others, or rendering it a slave to
the dogmas of any school which the petty arrogance of man would set
on the throne of the living God, (for this would be to forfeit the divine
freedom won for us by Christ,) our efforts must be directed to the
constant purification and elevation of our thinking (otherwise subject
to sin and error) by the spirit of truth. Free inquiry belongs to
the goods of humanity, but it presupposes the true freedom of the
whole man, which commences in the disposition, which has its seat in
the heart, and we know where this freedom is alone to be found. We
know whence that freedom came which by means of Luther and the
Iicformation broke the fetters of the human mind. We know that
those who have this beautiful name most frequently on their lips, often
mean by it only another kind of slavery.
- It will now be my most earnest care and greatest satisfaction,
to devote the time and strength not employed in my official labours, to
the continuation of my History of the Church, to its termination, for
which may God grant me the assistance of his Spirit !
A. NEANDER.
BERLIN, 9lh August, 1832.
(GENERAL) PKEFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.
HAVING, as I believe, sufficiently explained in my former prefaces
the object of this work, and the theological position it takes in relation
to other standing-points, I have little more to add. What I have
here expressed will serve to rectify several errors which have since been
discovered, to pacify, as far as possible, various complaints. Many
things indeed find their rectification or settlement only in that
constant process of development and purification which is going on
in a critical age. There is a fire kindled, which must separate in
the building that is founded on a rock, the wood, hay and stubble,
from what is formed of the precious metals and jewels. There arc
imaginary wants, which not only I cannot satisfy, but which I do not
wish to satisfy. The activity shown of late years, in Biblical inquiries
and the kindred branches of history, has enabled me to correct and
amplify many parts, and to vindicate others from objections.
A. NEAXDER.
BERLIN', 30th May, 1333.
PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION.
PEEFACE TO THE TPIIRD EDITION.
As to what I have said respecting the position I have taken in reference
to the controversies which are every day waxing fiercer, and distract an
age that longs after a new creation, I can only reassert that, if it pleased
God, I hope to abide faithful to these principles to my latest breath !
the ground beneath our feet may be shaken, but not the heavens above
us. We will adhere to that theologia pectoris, which is likewise the
true theology of the spirit, the German theology, as Luther calls it.
The demand for this new edition was a call to improve the work
to the utmost of my ability, and to introduce whatever new views
appeared to me to be correct.
Sound criticism on particular points will always be welcome to me ;
the cavils of self-important sciolists I shall always despise.
A. NEANDEB.
BERLIN, 2d August, 1841.
CONTENTS.
BOOK I.
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE, PREVIOUS TO ITS SPREAD
AMONG HEATHEN NATIONS.
CHAPTEH I.— The Christian Church on its First Appearance as a Distinct Religious
Community.
PAGE
Preparation for the outpouring of the Holy Spirit 1 — 3
The outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost 3—23
The gift of tongues 7—16
Peter's discourse and its effects— His call to repentance, faith, and baptism ... 18—20
CHAPTER II.— The First Form of the Christian Community, and the First Germ of the
Constitution of the Christian Church.
The formation of a community — One article of faith — Baptism into Jesus as the
Messiah — Probably only one baptismal formula — Imperfect knowledge and
mixed character of the first converts 20, 21
The first form of the Christian community and worship — The Agapse 22
Community of goods — Influence of Christianity on social relations — Orders of
monkhood— the St. Simonians 24—27
The case of Ananias and Sapphira 27, 28
Adherence to the Temple-worship 28, 29
The institution of Deacons 30 — 35
The institution of Presbyters — Originally for the purpose of government rather
than of instruction 35, 3(5
Means of instruction — Teachers; 6ida<rKa\ia, irpotyweia, 7rap<jK\r)<m 37, 38
Gradual transition from Judaism to Christianity 39, 40
CHAPTER III. — The outward Condition of the Primitive Church; Persecutions and
their consequences.
The cure of the impotent man — Peter and John brought before the Sanhedrim —
The increase of believers — Peter's address — Gamaliel 41 — 47
Christianity in direct conflict with Pharisaism — Stephen the forerunner of Paul —
His views of Christianity in opposition to the permanence of the Mosaic ritual —
His discourse before the Sanhedrim — Martyrdom, and its effects 48 — 56
BOOK. II.
THE FIRST SPREA\> OF CHRISTIANITY FROM THE CHURCH AT
JERUSALEM TO OTHER PARTS, AND ESPECIALLY AMONG
HEATHEN NATIONS.
Samaria — Its religious state — The Goetae — Simon — Philip's preaching and mira
cles — Simon's baptism — Peter and John sent to Samaria— Philip's labours in
Ethiopia, &c 57— C4
Xll CONTENTS.
PAGE
Formation of Gentile Churches — Enlarged views of the Apostles produced by in
ternal revelation and outward events 65, fiG
Peter's labours at Lydda and Joppa — Cornelius the Centurion — A proselyte of the
Gate — His prayers and fasting — Vision of an Angel — Peter's vision — His
address to Cornelius — The gift of the Holy Spirit bestowed on the Gentile
converts 66 — 7G
BOOK III.
THE SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY, AND FOUNDING OF THE CHRISTIAN
CHURCH AMONG THE GfcNTILES BY THE INSTRUMENTALITY OF
THE APOSTLE PAUL.
CHAPTER I. — Paul's Preparation and Call to be the Apostle of the Gentiles.
Paul's peculiar position in the development of the kingdom of God— His parentage
and education— His strict legal piety— Compared with Luther 77—82
Paul a zealous persecutor of the Christians— His mitaculous conversion — Un
satisfactory explanation on natural principles— Or considered as merely in
ternal — A real appearance of the risen Saviour — Its effects 82 — 90
Paul preaches the Gospel at Damascus — (Joes into Arabia — Return* to Damascus
— and flight— Visit to Jerusalem— The peculiar development of his religious
views — Return to Tarsus 90 — 98
CHAPTER II. — The Church at Antioch the Gentile Mother-Church, and its Relation to
the Jewish Mother-Church.
Barnabas at Antioch— The name Christians first given to believers — Contributions
from the Church at Antioch to the Church at Jerusalem— Persecution by Herod
Agrippa— Paul's visit to Jerusalem — Whether the same as that mentioned in
Gal. ii. 1. — Barnabas and Paul sent from Antioch to preach among the Gentiles
99—105
CHAPTER III. — The Propagation of Christianity from Antiochby Paul and Barnabas.
Their visit to Cyprus — Conversion of the Proconsul Sergius Paulus — The Goes
Barjesus — Antioch in Pisidia — Iconium — Lystra — Cure of the lame man — The
Apostles supposed to be Zeus and Hermes — The popular tumult — Their return
to Antioch 105—114
CHAPTER IV. — The Division between the Jewish and Gentile Christians, and its settle
ment — The independent Development of the Gentile Church.
Dispute between the Jewish and Gentile Christians respecting Circumcision —
Mission of Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem — Paul's private conferences with
the Apostles — His Apostleship acknowledged — His controversy with the Jewish
believers, and opposition to the circumcision of Titus 114 — 116
The Apostolic Convention. — Peter's address — Barnabas and Paul give an account
of their success among the Gentiles — Proposal of James — The moderation and
conciliatory spirit of Paul and James — Epistle to the Gentile Christians in
Syria and Cilicia — Return of Paul and Barnabas to Antioch — The important
results of this Convention 116—123
*
CHAPTER V.—The Constitution of the Church, and the Ecclesiastical Usages of the
Gentile Christians.
The peculiar nature of the Christian community — all Christians Priests — equally
related to Christ— and in a relation of fraternal equality to one another... 128 — 130
The influence of the Holy Spirit on the varieties of mental character and natural
endowments — The ideaof Charisms — The giftsof <Wa>etr, cru^eTa, repara 130—132
1. Charisms or gifts for the ministry of the Word 132— HO
CONTENTS. Xlii
FA OK
2. Charisms relating to the government of the Church, npcaflvTfpoi, brtrtoroi —
Elders or Presbyters, and Overseers or Bishops, originally, the same— Exclu
sion of females from the office of public teaching 140 — 147
Originally three orders of teachers — Apostles, Evangelists, Teacliers — Relation
of the last to Elders and Overseers 148—153
Tbe office of Deaconesses 153, 154
Ordination — Election to offices 154, 15f>
The Christian Worship — Independence of the Mosaic Ritual— Hence no distinc
tion of days — No Christian feasts mentioned by Paul 156 — 158
Tbe Christian Sabbath — Its special reference to the Resurrection of Christ — No
yearly commemoration of the Resurrection 158 — ICO
Baptism — The Formula — Symbolical meaning of the act of submersion and emer
sion — Infant Baptism probably not of apostolic origin — Substitutionary Baptism
(note) — The influence of the parental relation on the offspring of Chris
tians id— ire
The Lord's Supper 166
Advantages and disadvantages of the Gentile Converts — Preparation of mankind
for a reception of the Gospel— by a sense of guilt and unhappiness— Its direct
contrariety to Heathenism — Dangers from the corruption of Morals — and from
philosophical speculations 166 — 1G8
CHAPTER VI. — Second Missionary Journey of the Apostle Paul.
The separation of Paul and Barnabas on account of Mark— Paul and Silas visit
Isauria and Pisidia— Meet with Timothy— Phrygia— Galatia— Troas—Philippi
— Baptism of Lydia — Persecution — Conversion of the Philippian Gaoler... 168—1"!;
Paul at Thessalonica — Addresses both Jews and Gentiles — Gains a livelihood by
tent-making — His expectations of the near approach of the second coming of
Christ— Fanatical opposition of the Jews — Proceeds to Beroea 179 — 18;>
Paul at Athens— The religious character of the Athenians— Paul disputes with
the Philosophers — The relation of the Stoics and Epicureans to Chris
tianity 186—188
Paul's discourse — His appeal to the religious principle implanted in human
nature — The Altar to an unknown God — Polytheism — The one living God —
Announcement of a Redeemer— The effect of his discourse— Dionysius the
Areopagite — Timothysent to Thessalonica 188—195
Paul at Corinth— Two chief obstacles to the reception of the Gospel— Fondness
for speculation — and for sensual indulgences — Meets with Aquila and Priscilla
— The Church formed principally of Gentile converts — The Proconsul Gallic —
Paul's labours in Achaia 196—201
Thessalonica— Information of the state of the Church brought by Timothy— The
First Epistle to the Thessalonians — Enthusiastic tendencies — A forged epistle
— The Second Epistle to the Thessalonians— The signs preceding the second
coming of Christ— Marks of a genuine epistle 202—207
CHAPTER VII. — The Apostle Paul's Journey to Antioch, and his renewed Jdissionauj
Labours among the Heathen.
Paul's journey to Jerusalem— His vow and offering in the Temple 207, 208
Paul at Antioch— His meeting with Barnabas and Peter— His reprimand of
Peter — Revival of the controversy between the Jewish and Gentile
Christians 209—213
Paul visits Phrygia and Galatia 213, 214
Paul at Ephesus— His labours first in the synagogue — Then among the Gentiles
— the Jewish Goetas — the disciples of John the Baptist rebaptized 215 — 218
State of the Galatian Churches— Paul's Epistle to the Galatians written by his
own hand — Asserts his independent apostleship— States the relation of
Christianity to Judaism and Heathenism— Warns them against seeking for
justification by the law — Date of this epistle 219 — 226
State of the Church at Corinth — Causes of its disorders ; superficial conversion,
general immorality, divisions occasioned by false teachers 227, 228
Parties in the Corinthian Church— The Petrine— The Pauline— That of Apollo,?
—That of Christ M 22?— 241
VOL. I. 6
XVI CONTENTS.
CHAPTER I. — The Pauline Doctrine.
PAGE
1. The connexion and contrast of Paul's earlier and later standing-point are con
tained in the ideas of diKaioa-vvri and v6/j.oy, which form the central point of
his doctrine 41f>
The dinaioavvn of his earlier standing-point depended on the observance of the
Mosaic law (i/oyiu/o;) — The Christian bmaioavvn and £<ot] correlative ideas 417
The fundamental principle of his late standing-point — No righteousness by the
works of the law available before God — No essential distinction between the
ritual and moral e'p7<x v6fj.ov — The idea of the law as a unity ; an outward rule
of action, requiring not effecting obedience — Applicable to the universal law of
conscience ,.., 418
Works the marks of the state of the disposition ; but the law can effect no change
in the disposition — Hence e'pya vo^ov are set in contrast to ep-ya dyaOu (Eph.
ii. 10) 419
The law not deficient as a standard of duty 419
2. The central-point of the Pauline anthropology — Human nature in opposition
to the law.
a. The nature of sin.
<r«pf — ffapmKoy — The disunion in human nature not necessary— but
voluntary and blameworthy 420
o-apxiKor does not import merely the predominance of the senses, or sensual
appetite— Sometimes equivalent to x^x^or, in opposition to the Veiov nvev/Jia ;
but sometimes the body as the organ of sinful tendencies 421, 422
I). Origin of sin and death.
The consciousness of sin and of the need of redemption presupposed as a
universal fact; hence the origin of sin seldom adverted to, but the idea of
an original state of perfection, and the voluntary fall of the first man, lies
at the basis of Paul's doctrine 422, 423
The first man not the representative of human nature generally — The
origin of sinful desire from apparent guiltlessness (Rom. vii. 9) not referable
to Adam 424
According to Horn. v. 12, the sinful direction of the will was produced by
Adam's voluntary act, from original sinlessness, and continues itself in the
whole development of the race 425, 420
Through sin death comes upon all men, not by an essential change in the
physical organization of man, but in man's view of death — Death appears
not as a step in the development of life, but as a consequence of the with-
drawment of the divine life through sin 427, 428
c. Suppression by sin of the natural revelation of God.
The original affinity to God not destroyed but suppressed -The use of the
works of creation in awakening the religious sentiment — Religious suscep
tibility injured by sin— the origin of idolatry— Deterioration of" man's moral
nature, yet the power of convenience not destroyed 428 — 430
d. The state of disunion.
Two contending principles in human nature — Spirit and flesh — States of
bondage — Either unconscious, living without law, or conscious, living under
the law — Rom. vii. a delineation of both these states, taken from Paul's own
experience, but applicable to all mankind 430 — 433
3. Preparatives for Redemption — Judaism and Heathenism.
a. Judaism — Preparative in two ways — By awakening an anxiety for redemp
tion, and by pointing to the means by which it would be effected — Only one
universal purpose of God, who reveals his redeeming grace in its promise
and its fulfilment — Faith, one universal condition — The fundamental relation
between God and man not altered by the law, which served partly to repress
the outbreakings of sin — partly to excite the consciousness of sin 434 — 43(i
b. Heathenism.
Judaism a progressive revelation, but heathenism only a development of
nature — Though idolatry suppressed the original revelation of God in the
CONTENTS. XV11
works of Nature, still the law of conscience remained (of which the Mosaic
law was a representative), and with that a sense of the need of redemption-
Partial fulfilment of the law by heathens 437—4
c. Hindrances and conditions of salvation in both Jews and Heathens.
The gross security of heathenism— The legal righteousness of Judaism—
The si-rn-seeking of the Jews, and the wisdom-seeking of the Gentiles— Re
demption the object of the whole history of mankind— Attestations to the
universal need of redemption in Christ's discourses as recorded in the three
first Gospels 439-144
4. The Work of Redemption.
A. Its accomplishment by Christ, both actively and passively 444—446
a. The life of Christ exhibits the destruction of sin, and the realization of the
law in human nature
/;. The sufferings of Christ (constantly to be viewed in connexion with his
life)
B. The results of the work of Christ.
a. Reconciliation with God.
The lite and sufferings of Christ a revelation of the eternal love of God-
Men, once the enemies of God, become through Christ objects of divine
love 449> 45°
Possibility of reconciliation as merely subjective— A change in the dispo
sition of man towards God effected by the work of Christ— But even ^on tli
supposition the amendment in man is the effect, not the cause of God s love;
2 Cor. v. 20.
i.'i
But this view inadequate and untenable — The sense of the wrath of God
has an objective basis — A revelation of the divine holiness •• 45
The distinction between 7r«peor<? and u^eo-iy 4S-5> 4^
The divine holiness revealed in Christ in a twofold manner 454, 45
b. aVoAi;Tpwcnr ami (Turripja, freedom from guilt and punishment; in a wider
sense as effected objectively by Christ, and realized in individuals in a more
limited sense 4l)fi
The Pauline 3iKmW<r, like the Jewish, inseparable from a participation in
all the privileges of the kingdom of God— but only to be obtained through
fellowship with Christ, the only perfect <5<Wor :
Hence 5<KcuW<r the induction of a believer in Christ into the relation of
a 6iKaioy, biKatovvvn the appropriation of Christ's righteousness as the
objective ground of faith, as well as the subjective principle of life ; hence
its necessarily supposed departure from a life of sin, and entrance into the
holy life of Christ 45G. 457
.*>. The Appropriation of Salvation by Faith.
a. The nature of Faith.
The reception of divine revelation by an internal determination of t
Avill— In this respect, and not in reference to the object, Abraham was a pat
tern of the righteousness that is by faith; Rom. iv. 19 4j
Christian faith modified by its object— A twofold reference to Christ as
crucified and risen 45
?>. 7r/<TT<9 the peculiarity of the Christian standing-point, in distinction from the
Jewish legal.
The law requires everything which faith already contains ; Rom. x. 5.. 460, 461
The law is in itself a deadly letter— The gospel a life-giving spirit— In the
believer, the law is not an object merely of knowledge, but of efficient love... 461
The law is so far abrogated for believers, that their ttKaiovtvn and fo»; are
independent of it through faith, from which e'p7a 070*6 spontaneously
proceed 462,463
XV111 CONTENTS.
PAGE
Paul's appeals to the 1/6/110? are only to the outward Mosaic law as an
expression of the eternal law of God 4G3
Hence the term vofiot denotes in a more general sense what is common to
both Judaism and Christianity ; in the one to an outward, in the other to an
inward law 464, 465
Under the Jewish theocracy the service was external, si> Tta\ai6rtiTt
7paju/uaToc— Under the Gospel internal, ev Katvorrtn vvevnaTO? — Its dovXeia.
identical with vlo&eaia ; the worship of the former c-apKi/o/, of the latter
Trvev/j-ariKfj ; in the one was Kara o-up/ca, iu the other ev /cupj'^ 465, 466
6. The New Life proceeding from Faith.
a. The transformation of the sinful nature by the Divine ; accomplished gra
dually ; the <rap? opposed not merely by the higher nature of man but by
the Spirit of Christ (nvev/jia. aytov) 467
All the mental and bodily powers become organs of grace— The Spirit of
Christ pervades all the peculiar talents of individuals ; hence charisms.. 468, 469
Objective justification as an unchangeable ground of confidence, distin
guished from subjective sanctification, which is often an uncertain ground... 470
b. The principles of the new life — Faith, Love, Hope.
Trio--™? sometimes denotes the whole extent of Christian ability — Suva-ros
rfj niarei relates particularly to the judgment formed by the Christian of
outward things — Hence proceeds Christian freedom, which is shown even in
submitting to outward restraints 471 — 475
Love the natural effect of faith — By the revelation of the love of God in
redemption, love to him is continually kindled 475
Faith and love partly relate to the kingdom of God as present, but they
have also a marked relation to the future, for the new life is in a state of
constant progression, it longs after the perfect revelation of the children
of God 476—478
Hence hope necessarily belongs to faith and love — Perseverance in the
work of faith is the practical side of hope 479
The knowledge of divine things proceeds from faith — Proceeds from the
spiritual life — Depends on the increase of love — Being necessarily defective
in the present state, is connected with the hope of perfect intuition 479, 430
Love the greatest of the three, because it alone abides for ever ; 1 Cor.
xiii. 13 481,482
c. Special Christian virtues proceeding from Faith, Love, and Hope.
a. TaneivcHppcHTvvti distinguishes the Christian from the Heathen view of
the world ; only partial even on the Jewish standing-point ; though its direct
relation is to God alone, yet its effects are, opposition to all self-exaltation,
and moderation towards others 483—435
fi. arhxppoa-uvn, sober-mindedness in conflict with the world, 2 Tim. i. 7;
and in self-estimation, Rom. xii. 3 486
7. cro^iu — The understanding under the influence of faith — Wisdom and
prudence 486,437
Analogy to the cardinal virtues of heathen philosophers — Love occupies
the place of &LK.aio<rvvn 487,488
7. The Church and Sacraments.
The immediate relation of each individual to Christ of primary import
ance — Hence the idea of a community founded on the unity of the Holy
Spirit in believers, which counterbalances all other differences, Gal. iii. 26. .489, 4SO
The eKK\r]<ria is the body of Christ — Faith in Christ its foundation — Marks
of its unity, Eph. iv. 4 400
The Old Testament terms applied to Christians, a-fioi denotes their objec
tive consecration joined with subjective sanctification — K\t]roi the outward
and inward call considered as one — The idea and the appearance in general
not separated by Paul 491
But in particular instances, the spurious members are distinguished from
the genuine — Where the difference is perceptible the former are to be
excluded, in other cases the separation must be left to God 492
CONTENTS. XIX
PAGE
The care of the general good committed to all according to their respective
abilities and charisms 493
l. The Sacraments — Baptism, and the Supper.
a. Baptism— " Putting on Christ"— Its twofold reference to the death and
resurrection of Christ; includes a reference to the Father and the Holy Spirit
— The outward and the inward are supposed tube combined 494, 495
b. The Supper.
A feast of commemoration, 1 Cor. xi. 24, the celebration of Christ's suffer
ings and a pledge of constant communion with him; k<nlv = it represents,
involves a reference to the mutual communion of believers 496 — 498
). The Kingdom of God 499
A. Its idea and extent.
a. Its extent at successive periods.
Preparation by means of the Jewish theocracy— And completed by
Christianity; the former sensible and national, the latter spiritual and
universal 500
By faith in Christ, the Messianic kingdom, the a\iov /ueXXui/ as opposed
to the aliav ovror or Trovnpor becomes already present — Hence the kingdom
of God coincides with the idea of the invisible church on earth 500, 501
But the idea is still imperfectly realized • 502
A threefold application of the term. 1. The present internal kingdom
of God, 1 Cor. iv. 20; Rom. xiv. 17. 2. The future completion of it,
1 Cor. vi. 10. 3. The present as one with the future, 1 Thess. ii. 12;
2 Thess. i. 5 503
b. The heavenly community co-existing with the invisible church.
The kingdom of God embraces a higher spiritual world, in which the
archetype of the church is realized — Mankind are united to this higher
world by the knowledge of God, Eph. iii. 15, Col. i. 20, compared with
Eph. ii. 14 504
Christ is the head of this universal church, as uniting the divine and
human natures — The idea of the Logos — Not accidentally connected with
the person of Christ— Enters into the essence of Christianity 5u4 — 509
B. The opposition of the kingdom of God to the kingdom of evil.
The prevalence of sin among mankind connected with the prevalence of
.- vil in the higher world — All ungodliness the power of a spirit whose king-
iom is nlwv ouror— False gods not evil spirits 509 — 511
Christ the destroyer of this kingdom — His death apparently a defeat, but
i reality a victory — Charisms the tokens of his triumph 512
The conflict with the kingdom of evil carried on by Christians 513
C. The development of the kingdom of God till its final completion.
The accomplishment of the scheme of redemption a work of free grace 514
a. As opposed to preeminence of natural descent 514
b. As opposed to legal merits 514, 515
Apparent denial of free self-determination in Rom. ix., but not the
apostle's intention to give a complete theory — But an antithetical reference
to the arrogance of the Jews 51G — 519
Confidence in their own righteousness the cause of the rejection of the
jews — The Gentiles warned against presumptuous reliances on divine
grace 520
To excite Christian confidence, the apostle refers to the unalterable counsel
of divine love — Allusions to the consummation of the kingdom of God 520 — 522
10. The doctrine of the Resurrection and the State of the Soul after Death.
a. The doctrine of the Resurrection.
The spiritual awakening by faith a preparation for the future— The Palin-
genesia of nature, Rom. viii. 19 522.523
XX CONTENTS.
PAGE
b. State of the Soul after death till the Resurrection.
Whether Paul considered the state of the soul after death till the resurrec
tion to be one of suspended consciousness like sleep 'I — Apparent ground lor
it in 1 Thess .•:•-•." 524
But his expectation of continued communion with Christ, as signified in
2 Cor. iv. 16, opposed to this supposition ; also Phil. i. 21, 23; 2 Tim. iy. 18..525, 52tt
Possibility of an alteration in his views by progressive illumination— But
a comparison of 1 Cor. xv. with 2 Cor. v.l, is against this 527,528
Therefore he held the unbroken consciousness of the soul after death, even
at an earlier period of his ministry, though not then brought forward 52M
The end of the Mediatorial kingdom and the consummation of all
things 529-oSl
BOOK I.
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE, PREVIOUS TO ITS
SPREAD AMONG HEATHEN NATIONS.
CHAPTER I.
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH ON ITS FIRST APPEARANCE AS A
DISTINCT RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY.
THE historical development of the Christian Church as a body,
is similar to that of the Christian life in each of its members.
In the latter case, the transition from an unchristian to a
Christian state is not an event altogether sudden, and without
any preparatory steps. Many separate rays of divine light,
at different times, enter the soul ; various influences of awak
ening preparative grace are felt, before the birth of that new
divine life by which the whole character of man is destined to
be taken possession of, pervaded, and transformed. The
appearance of a new personality sanctified by the divine
principle of life, necessarily forms a great era in life, but the
commencement of this era is not marked with perfect preci
sion and distinctness ; the new creation manifests itself more
or less gradually by its effects. " The wind bloweth where it
listeth, and thou nearest the sound thereof, but knowcst not
whence it cometh, nor whither it goeth." The same may be
affirmed of the church collectively, with this difference, how
ever, that here the point of commencement is more visibly
and decidedly marked.
It is true, that Christ, during his ministry on earth, laid the
foundation of the outward structure of the church ; he then
formed that community, that spiritual theocracy, whose
members were held together by faith in him, and a profession
VOL. i. B
2 THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE.
of allegiance to him as their King ; and which was the
chosen vessel for receiving and conveying to all the tribes of
the earth that divine indwelling life, which he came to impart
to the whole human race. The fountain of divine life was.
still shut up in him, and had not diffused itself abroad with
that energy and peculiarity of direction, which were essential
to the formation of the Christian church. The apostles them
selves were as yet confined to the bodily presence and out
ward guidance of the Redeemer : though, by the operation of
Christ, the seminal principle of a divine life had been depo
sited in their hearts, and given signs of germination, still it
had not attained its full expansion and peculiar character ;
hence it might be affirmed, that what constituted the ani
mating spirit and the essential nature of the Christian church,
as an association gradually enlarging itself — (the unity of a
divine life manifesting itself in a variety of individual pecu
liarities) had not yet appeared ; this event, indeed, Christ had
intimated would not take place till preparation had been made
for it by his sufferings and return to his heavenly Father.
At his last interview with the disciples, just before his final
separation from them, in answer to their inquiry respecting
the coming of his kingdom, he referred them to the power of
the Holy Spirit, who would enable them rightly to understand
the doctrine of his kingdom, and furnish them with fit instru
ments for spreading it through the world. All the promises
of the Saviour relate, it is true, not merely to one single
event, but to the whole of the influence of the Holy Spirit on
the Apostles, and, in a certain sense, on the Universal Church
founded by their means ; yet the display of that influence for
the first time, forms so distinguished an epoch in the lives of
the Apostles, that it may properly be considered as an espe
cial fulfilment of these promises. Christ pointed out to the
Apostles such a palpable epoch, which would be attended with
a firm conviction of a great internal operation on their minds,
an unwavering consciousness of the illumination imparted by
the Divine Spirit ; for, before his final departure, he enjoined
upon them, not to leave Jerusalem till that promise was ful
filled, and they had received that baptism of the Spirit which
would shortly take place.
On account of this event, the Pentecost which the disciples
celebrated soon after the Saviour's departure, is of such great
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE. 3
importance, as marking the commencement of the Apostolic
Church, for here it first publicly displayed its essential cha
racter. Next to the appearance of the Son of God himself'
on earth, this * was the greatest event, as the commencing
point of the new divine life, proceeding from him to the
human race, which has since spread and operated through
successive ages, and will continue to operate until its final
object is attained, and all mankind are transformed into the
image of Christ. If we contemplate this great transaction
from this, its only proper point of view, we shall not be
tempted to explain the greater by the less ; we shall not con
sider it strange that the most wonderful event in the inner
life of mankind should be accompanied by extraordinary out
ward appearances, as sensible indications of its existence.
Still less shall we be induced to look upon this great trans
action — in which we recognise the necessary beginning of a
new epoch, an essential intermediate step in the religious
development of the Apostles, and in the formation of the
Church — as something purely mytlncal.
The disciples must have looked forward with intense ex
pectation to the fulfilment of that promise, which the Saviour
1 Whoever looks upon Christ only as the highest being developed
from the germs originally implanted in human nature (although an
absolutely highest being cannot logically be inferred in the develop
ment of human nature from this standing-point), must take an essenti
ally different view from ourselves of the transaction of which we are
speaking, though he may approximate to us in the mode of viewing-
particular points. When Hase, in his Essay on the First Christian
Pentecost, in the Second Part of Winer's Zeitsclirift fiir wissenschaft-
liche Theologie (Journal for Scientific Theology), says, " that a time
may arrive when what is the result of freedom in man shall be
considered as divine, and the Holy Spirit ; " we readily grant that such
a time is coming, or rather is already come ; it has already reached its
highest point, from which must ensue a revolution in the mode of
thinking. We cannot, however, hold this view to be the Christian
one, but entirely opposite to real Christianity. How irreconcilable it
is with the apostolic belief, an unprejudiced thinker, Bouterweck,.
acknowledges in his Religion der Vernunft (Religion of Keason), p. 137.
The Holy Spirit, in the Christian sense, is never the divine in the
nature of man, but a communication from God to the nature of man
(incapable of itself of reaching its moral destination), which becomes
thereby raised to a higher order of life. But this supernatural com
munication from God, by no means contradicts an acknowledgment of
the divine and of freedom in the nature of man, but rather pre
supposes both.
4 THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE.
had so emphatically repeated.1 Ten days had passed since
their final separation from their Divine Master, when that
1 Professor Hitzig, in his Sendschreiben uber Ostern und Pfingsten
(Letters on Easter and Pentecost), Heidelberg, 1837, maintains, that
this event occurred not at the Jewish Pentecost, but some days earlier,
and that the day of the giving of the Law from Sinai is also to be fixed
some days earlier ; that Acts ii. 1, is to be understood, " when the day
of Pentecost drew near, " and therefore denotes a time before the actual
occurrence of this feast. As evidence for this assertion, it is remarked
that, in verse 5, only the Jews settled in Jerusalem, those who out of all
the countries in which they were scattered, had settled in Jerusalem,
from a strong religious feeling, are mentioned, when, if the reference
had been to one of the principal feasts, the multitude of foreign Jews,
who came from all parts, would have been especially noticed. Against
this view we have to urge the following considerations. The words
Acts ii. 1, " When the day of Pentecost was fully come, " would be
most naturally understood of the actual arrival of that day, as Tr\r)pufj.a
TOV xpdvov, or rwv Kaipwv, Eph. i. 10, and Gal. iv. 4, denote the actual
arrival of the appointed time ; though we allow that, in certain con
nexions, they may denote the near approach of some precise point of
time, as in Luke ix. 51, where yet it is to be noticed t'hat it is not
said "the day," but "the days;" and thus the time of the departure
of Christ from the earth, which was now actually approaching, is
marked in general terms. But as to the connexion of this passage in
the Acts, if we are inclined to understand these words only of the near
approach of Pentecost, we do not see why such a specification of the
time should have been given. Had Luke thought that the day of
giving the Law on Sinai was different from that of the Pentecost, it
might be expected that ;he would have marked more precisely the main
subject. Besides, there are no traces to be found, that a day in com
memoration of the giving of the Law was observed by the Jews. But if
we understand the words as referring to the actual arrival of Pentecost,
the importance of fixing the time, in relation to the words immediately
following, and the whole sequel of the narrative, is very apparent. This
feast would occasion the assembling of believers at an early hour. The
words in verse 5, we must certainly understand merely of such Jews as
were resident in Jerusalem, not of such who came there first at t'his time.
But from a comparison with the 9th verse, it is evident that Karouce'iv
is not to be understood altogether in the same sense in both verses ; that
in the latter, those are spoken of who had their residence elsewhere,
and were only sojourning for a short time in Jerusalem. And if we
grant that the persons spoken of belonged to the number of the Jews
who formerly dwelt in other lands, but for a long time past had settled
in Jerusalem, as the capital of the Theocracy, then it is clear t'hat, by
the eTnSTjjiow/Tes 'Pcofj-aioi, we must understand such as for some special
cause were just come to Jerusalem. Further, there were also those
called Proselytes, who were found in great numbers at Jerusalem, for
some special occasion, and this could be no other than the feast of Pen
tecost. Doubtless, by " all the dwellers at Jerusalem," v. 14, who arc
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE. Q
feast was celebrated, whose object so nearly touched that
which especially occupied their minds at the time, and must
therefore have raised their anxious expectations still higher —
the Jewish Pentecost, the feast which was held seven weeks
after the Passover. This feast, according to the original
Mosaic institution, related only to the first fruits of Harvest ;
nor is any other reason for its celebration adduced by Jose-
phus and Philo— in this respect, only a distant resemblance
could be traced between the first fruits of the natural Crea
tion, and those of the new Spiritual Creation ; this analogy,
it is true, is often adverted to by the ancient Fathers of the
Church, but before the fulfilment of the Saviour's promise,
must have been very far from the thoughts of the disciples.
But if we venture to credit the Jewish Traditions, l this feast
had also a reference to the giving of the law on Mount Sinai ;2
hence, by way of distinction, it has been called the feast of the
joy of the Law.3 If this be admitted, then the words of
Christ respecting the new revelation of God by him, the new
relation established by him between God and Man, which he
himself under the designation of the New Covenant4 placed in
opposition to the Old,— must have been vividly recalled to
the minds of the disciples by the celebration of this feast, and,
at the same time, their anxious longing would be more strongly
excited for that event, which, according to his promise, would
confirm and glorify the New Dispensation. As all who pro
fessed to be the Lord's disciples (their number then amounted
distinguished from the Jews, are meant all who were then living at
Jerusalem, without determining whether they had resided there always,
or only for a short time. The whole narrative, too, gives the impression
that a greater multitude of persons than usual were then assembled at
Jerusalem.
1 Which may be found collected in a Dissertation by J. M. Danz, in
Meuschen's Novum Testamentum e Talmude illustratum, p. 740.
2 That they are justified in making such a reference, may be concluded
from comparing Exodus xii. 1, and xix. 1.
3 minn nnoto.
4 The wordYia0T;/oj, rna, which has been used to denote both the Old
and the New Dispensation, is taken from human relations, as signify
ing a covenant or agreement; but in its application to the relation
between God and man, the fundamental idea must never be lost sight
of, namely, that of a relation in which there is something reciprocal and
conditional, as, in this case, a communication from God to man is con-
ditionated by the obedience of faith on the part of the latter.
G THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE.
to one hundred and twenty)1 were wont to meet daily for
mutual edification, so on this solemn day, they were assembled
in a chamber,2 which according to Oriental customs was
specially assigned to devotional exercises. It was the first
stated hour of prayer, about nine in the morning, and, ac
cording to what we must suppose was then the tone of the
disciples' feelings, we may presume that their prayers turned
to the object which filled their souls — that on the day when
the Old Law had been promulgated with such glory, the New
also might be glorified by the communication of the promised
Spirit. And what their ardent desires and prayers sought for,
what their Lord had promised, was granted. They felt
elevated to a new state of mind, pervaded by a spirit of joy-
fulness and power, to which they had hitherto been strangers,
and seized by an inspiring impulse, to testify the .grace of
1 Without doubt, those expositors adopt the right view who suppose,
that not merely the apostles but all the believers were at that time
assembled ; for though, in Acts i. 26, the apostles are primarily in
tended, yet the pad-riTai collectively form the chief subject (i. 15), to
which the a-n-avres at the beginning of the second chapter necessarily
refers. It by no means follows, that because, in ch. ii. 14, the apostles
alone are represented as speakers, the assembly was confined to these
alone ; but here, as elsewhere, they appear the leaders and representa
tives of the whole church, and distinguish themselves from the rest of
the persons met together; Acts ii. 15. The great importance of the
fact which Peter brings forward in his discourse, that the gifts of the
Spirit, which, under the Old Covenant, were imparted only to a select
class of persons, such as the prophets, — under the New Covenant, which
removes every wall of separation in reference to the higher life, are com
municated without distinction to all believers— this great fact would be
altogether lost sight of, if we confined every thing here mentioned to
the apostles. Throughout the Acts, wherever the agency of the Spirit
is manifested by similar characteristics in those who were converted to
a living faith, we perceive an evident homogeneity with this first great
event.
2 Such a chamber was built in the eastern style, with a fiat roof, and
a staircase leading to the court-yard, virfpyov, TTOS. According to the
narrative in the Acts, we must suppose it to have been a chamber in a
private house. But, in itself, there is nothing to forbid our supposing
that the disciples met together in the Temple at the first hour of prayer
during the feast ; their proceedings would thus have gained much in
notoriety, though not in real importance, as Olshausen maintains ; for
it perfectly accorded with the genius of the Christian Dispensation, not
being restricted to particular times and places, and obliterating the
distinction of profane and sacred, that the first effusion of the Holy
Spirit should take place, not in a temple, but in an ordinary dwelling.
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE. 7
redemption, of which now for the first time they had right
perceptions. Extraordinary appearances of nature (a con
junction similar to what has happened in other important
epochs of the history of mankind) accompanied the great
process then going on in the spiritual world, and were sym
bolic of that which filled their inmost souls. An earthquake
attended by a whirlwind suddenly shook the building in
which they were assembled, a symbol to them of that Spirit
which moved their inner man. Flaming lights in the form of
tongues streamed through the chamber, and floating down
wards settled on their heads, a symbol of the new tongues of
the fire of inspired emotion, which streamed forth from the
holy flame that glowed within them.1
The account of what took place on this occasion, leads us
back at last to the depositions of those who were present, the
only persons who could give direct testimony concerning it.
And it might happen, that the glory of the inner life then
imparted to them, might so reflect its splendour on surround
ing objects, that by virtue of the internal miracle (the eleva
tion of their inward life and consciousness, through the power
of the Divine Spirit), the objects of outward perception
appeared quite changed. And thus it is not impossible, that
all which presented itself to them as a perception of the out
ward senses, might be, in fact, only a perception of the pre
dominant inward mental state, a sensuous objectiveness of
what was operating inwardly with divine power, similar to the
ecstatic visions which are elsewhere mentioned in Holy Writ.
Whatever may be thought of this explanation, what was divine
in the event remains the same, for this was an inward process
in the souls of the disciples, in relation to which everything
outward was only of subordinate significance. Still, there is
nothing in the narrative which renders such a supposition
necessary. And if we admit, that there was really an earth
quake which frightened the inhabitants out of their houses, it
is easily explained how, though it happened early in the
morning of the feast, a great multitude would be found in the
streets, and the attention of one and another being attracted
to the extraordinary meeting of the .disciples, by degrees, a
1 Gregory the Great beautifully remarks : " Hinc est quod super
pastores primes in linguarum specie Spiritus Sanctus insedit, quia
aimirum quos replcverit de se protinus loquentes facit." Lib. i. Ep. "25.
8 THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE.
great crowd of persons, curious to know what was going on,
would collect around the house.1 The question may be asked,
By what was the astonishment of the bystanders especially
excited ? At first sight, the words in Acts ii. 7 — 1 1 appear
susceptible of but one interpretation, that the passers-by were
astonished at hearing Galileans who knew no language but
their own, speak in a number of foreign languages, which
they could not have learnt in a natural way2 — that, therefore,
we must conclude that the faculty was imparted to believers
by an extraordinary operation of Divine power, of speaking in
foreign languages not acquired by the use of their natural
faculties. Accordingly, since the third century3 it has been
1 The question is, How are we to explain the difficult words TTJS tycavris
TCU'/TTJS, in Acts ii. 6 ] The pronoun TUVT^S leads us to refer the words to
what immediately preceded, the loud speaking of the persons assembled.
But then the use of the singular is remarkable. And since verse 2 is
the principal subject, we may refer the pronoun rat/r^y to that; the
7«j/ojueV)7s of verse 6 seems also to correspond to the eyeVero of verse 2. Not
only is it more easy to refer the pronoun TCTUTTJS to what immediately
precedes in verse 4, but also verses 3 and 4 rather than verse 2, contain
the most striking facts in the narrative ; it also entirely favours this
construction, that <pavT] must be understood of the noise made by the dis
ciples in giving vent to their feelings, and must be taken as a collective
noun, signifying a confused din, in which the distinction of individual
voices would be lost.
2 The words give us no reason to suppose that the by-standers took
offence at hearing the disciples speak of divine things in a different
language from the sacred one.
3 By many of the ancients it has been supposed — what a literal inter
pretation of the words ii. 8 will allow, and even favours — that the
miracle consisted in this, that, though all spoke in one and the same
language, each of the hearers believed that he heard them speak in his
own ; /j.iav /j.cv e^xe^(r^ai Qwipi iro\\as Se cutovecrQai. Gregory Naz. orat.
44, f. 715, who yet does not propound this view as peculiarly his
own. It has lately been brought forward in a peculiar manner by
Schneckenburger, in his Beitragen zur Einleitung in's Neue Testament
(Contributions towards an Introduction to the New Testament), p. 84.
The speakers, by the power of inspiration, operated so power
fully on; the feelings of their susceptible [hearers, that they involun
tarily translated what went to their hearts into their mother-tongue,
and understood it as if it had been spoken in that. By the element of
inspiration, the inward communion of feeling was so strongly brought
forth, that the lingual wall of separation was entirely taken away. But
in order to determine the correctness of this mode of explanation, it
may be of use to inquire, — If the language in which the hearers were
addressed was quite foreign to them, the natural medium of human in
tercourse would be wholly wanting, and would thus be compensated by
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE. 9
generally admitted, that a supernatural gift of tongues was
imparted on this occasion, by which the more rapid promul
gation of the gospel among the heathen was facilitated and
promoted. It has been urged that as in the apostolic age,
many things were effected immediately by the predominating
creative agency of God's Spirit, which, in later times, have
been effected through human means appropriated and sancti
fied by it ; so, in this instance, immediate inspiration stood in
the place of those natural lingual acquirements, which in
later times have served for the propagation of the gospeL
a miracle which produced an internal understanding1? Or was the
Aramaic language of the speakers not altogether foreign to the hearers,
only not so familiar as their mother-tongue'? But it was an effect of the
inward communion produced by the power of spiritual influence, that
they more easily understood those who spoke in a language not familiar
to them ; the want of familiarity was not felt. What was addressed to
them was as intelligible as if spoken in their mother- tongue. In this
Avay, although on the supposition of a powerful spiritual influence, by
which the essence of the Pentecostal miracle is not denied but presup
posed, it would be an explicable psychological fact. Men speaking with
the ardour of inspiration, made an impression on those who were not
capable of understanding a language foreign to them, similar to what we
are told of Bernard's Sermons on the Crusades in Germany : " Quod
Germanicis etiam populis loquens miro audiebatur affectu ; et de sermone
(jus, quern intelligerc, utpote alterius linguce homines, non valebant,
magis quani ex peritissirni cujuslibet post eum loquentis interprets in-
tellecta locutione, rcdiucari illorum devotio vidcbatur, cujus rei certa
probatio tunsio pectorum erat et effusio lacrimarum." Mabillon. ed.
Opp. Bernard, torn. ii. p. 1119. And this would for the most part agree
with the interpretation of my honoured friend Dr. Steudcl. But as to
the first mode of explanation, we do not see what can allow or justify our
substituting for the common interpretation of the miracle in question
another, which does not come nearer the pyschological analogy, but, on
the contrary, is further from it, and docs not so naturally connect itself
with the narrative as a whole. We cannot allow an appeal to the
analogy with the phenomena of animal magnetism, although, in
referring to such an analogy, we lind nothing objectionable, any more
than in general to the analogy between the supernatural and the natural,
provided the difference of psychical circumstances, and of the causes pro
ducing them, is not lost sight of. But still, in matters of science, where
every thing must be well grounded, we cannot attach a value to such a
document until it is ascertained what is really trustworthy in the ac
counts of such phenomena. As to the second mode of interpretation, it
can only be maintained by our adopting the supposition, that we have
here not a tradition from the first source, but only a representation,
which ultimately depends on the report of eye-witnesses, and if we hence
allow ourselves to distinguish what the author professes to say, from the
facts lying at the basis of his narrative.
10 THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE.
But, indeed, the utility of sucn a gift of tongues for the
spread of divine truth in the apostolic times, will appear not
so great, if we consider that the gospel had its first and chief
sphere of action among the nations belonging to the Roman
Empire, where the knowledge of the Greek and Latin lan
guages sufficed for this purpose, and that the one or the other
of these languages, as it was employed in the intercourse of
daily life, could not be altogether strange to the Jews. As to
the Greek language, the mode in which the apostles expressed
themselves in it, the traces of their mother-tongue which ap
pear in their use of it, prove that they had obtained a know
ledge of it, according to the natural laws of lingual acquirement.
In the history of the first propagation of Christianity, traces are
never to be found of a supernatural gift of tongues for this
object. Ancient tradition, which names certain persons as
interpreters of the apostles, implies the contrary.1 Also,
Acts xiv. 1 1 shows that Paul possessed no supernatural gift of
tongues. Yet all this does not authorize us to deny the
reference to such an endowment in the former passage of the
Acts, if the explanation of the whole passage, both in single
words and in its connexion, is most favourable to this inter
pretation. Nor do we venture to decide what operations not
to be calculated according to natural laws could be effected by
the power with which the new divine life moved the very
depths of human nature ; what especially could be effected
1 Thus Mark is called the ep/j.rivevs, or e/^nji/euT^s of Peter, (see Papias of
Hierapolis in Eusebius, Ecc. Hist. iii. 39, compared with Irengeus, iii. 1).
The Basilidians say the same of one Glaucias, Clement's Stromata, vii.
765. On comparing every thing, I must decide against the possible in
terpretation of those words favoured by several eminent modern critics
— that they mean simply an expositor, one who repeated the instruc
tions of Peter in his Gospel, with explanatory remarks ; — for this dis
tinction of Mark is always prefixed to accounts of his Gospel, and at the
same time from the fact of his acting in this capacity with Peter, his
capability is inferred to note down the report made by him of the
Evangelical history. Thus certainly the passage in Papias must be
understood ; Map/cos fj.ev epfj.fjVfVT^s Tlerpov •yev6fj.ei'os, oaa ffj-vrii^vevcrej/
a/tpijSws fypafyev. The second fact is founded on the first, that he ac
companied Peter as an interpreter. Some truth may lie at the basis of
this tradition ; it might be, that although Peter was not ignorant of the
Greek language, and could express himself in it, he yet took with him a
disciple who was thoroughly master of it, that he might be assisted by
him in publishing the Gospel among those who spoke that language.
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE. 11
through the connexion between the internal life of the Spirit
(on which the new creation operated with a power before un
known) and the faculty of speech. A phenomenon of this
kind might have taken place once, with a symbolic prophetic
meaning, indicating that the new divine life would reveal
itself in all the languages of mankind, as Christianity is
destined to bring under its sway all the various national
peculiarities ! A worthy symbol of this great event !
But we meet in the New Testament with other intimations
of such a gift of the Spirit, which are very similar to the
passage in the Acts ; and the explanation of these passages is
attended with fewer difficulties than that of the latter. If,
therefore, we do not, contrary to the natural laws of exegesis,
attempt to explain the clearer passages by the more obscure,
we cannot fail to perceive that, in the section on spiritual
gifts in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, something alto
gether different from such a supernatural gift of tongues is
spoken of. Evidently, the apostle is there treating of such
discourse as would not be generally intelligible, proceeding
from an ecstatic state of mind which rose to an elevation far
above the language of ordinary communication. We may
here adduce two passages in the Acts, which cannot possibly
be understood of speaking in a foreign language ; x. 46, and
xix. 6. How can we imagine that men, in the first glow of*
conversion, when first seized by the inspiring influence of
Christian faith, instead of pouring forth the feelings of
which their hearts were full, through a medium so dear and
easy to them as their mother-tongue, could find pleasure
in what at such a time would be a mere epideiktic miracle,
unless the effect of being filled with the Spirit was to hurry
them along, as blind instruments of a magical power, against
their wills, and to constrain them to make use of a different
language from that which at such a time must have been best
fitted for the expression of their feelings 1 l
1 I cannot comprehend what Professor Biiumlein maintains in his
Essay on this subject, in the Studien der evanyelischen Geistlichkeit
Wurtemberys (Studies of the Evangelical Clergy of \Yurtemberg),
vi. 2. p. 119, " that in certain religious mental states, the speaking in
foreign languages is by no means unnatural." It is plain that a man
may easily feel himself impelled, when actuated by new feelings and
ideas, to form new words ; as from a new spiritual life, a new religious
dialect forms itself. But how, under such circumstances, it can be
12 THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE.
Both these suppositions are at variance with the spirit of
the gospel, nor does any thing similar appear in the first
history of Christianity. Such exhibitions would be pecu
liarly suited to draw away the mind from that which is the
essence of conversion, and only to furnish aliment for an
unchristian vanity. On the other hand, there seems a pro
priety in referring these passages to the utterance of the new
things with wrhich the mind would be filled, in the new lan
guage of a heart glowing with Christian sentiment.1 Thus it
may be explained how, in the first passage (Acts x. 46), the
yXwao-atc \a\elv is connected with " praising God," " praising
God with the whole heart," when conscious of having through
his grace received salvation ; and in the second passage,
Acts xix. 6, with Trpoiprjrevetv. But as, in both these passages,
it is plainly shown that the communication of the Divine
Spirit was indicated by characteristics similar to those of its
original effusion at Pentecost, we are furnished with a
valuable clue to the right understanding of that event.
If, then, we examine more closely the description of what
transpired on the day of Pentecost, we shall find several
things which favour a different interpretation from the ancient
one. How could a number of carnally-minded men be led to
explain the speaking of the disciples in foreign languages, as
the effect of intoxication ? Acts ii. 13.2 How did it happen,
natural to speak a language altogether foreign, I cannot perceive, nor
can I find any analogy for it in other psychical phenomena. Still less
can I admit the comparison with the manifestations among the followers
of Mr. Irving in London, since, as far as my knowledge extends, I can
see nothing in these manifestations but the workings of an enthusiastic
spirit, which sought to copy the apostolic gift of tongues according
to the common interpretation, and therefore assumed the reality of that
gift,
1 See the Dissertation of Dr. David Schulz on the Spiritual Gifts of
the first Christians. Breslau, 1836.
2 Although this may not be considered as absolutely necessary, for it
would certainly be possible, that frivolous, carnally-minded men who
were disposed to ridicule what they did not understand, might not
observe the phenomenon (not explicable from common causes) 'of
speaking in a foreign language; it is possible that Peter, after he
had shown the contrariety of the inspiration of the apostles to a
state of intoxication, which could hardly have taken place at that
hour of the day, instead of adducing other marks which testified
against it, passed on to compare the phenomena with the prophetic pro
mise which was here fulfilled. Yet it is not at all probable that Peter,
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE. 13
that Peter in his apologetic discourse did not appeal to the
undeniably miraculous nature of an event by which the
objections of men unsusceptible of what was divine might
most easily be refuted? Why did he satisfy himself with
referring to the prophetic declarations respecting an extra
ordinary revival, and an effusion of the Spirit, which was to
take place in the times of the Messiah, without even advert
ing to this peculiar manifestation 1 In the construction of
the whole narrative, we find nothing that obliges us to adopt
the notion of a supernatural gift of tongues in the usual sense.
The flames that settled on their heads appear as the natural
symbols of the new tongues, or new language of that holy
fire which was kindled in the hearts of the disciples, by the
power of the Holy Spirit, and accordingly it is said, " They
were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with
other tongues1 as the Spirit gave them utterance ;" therefore
the tongues of the Spirit were the new form for the new
spirit which animated them.
It appears, indeed, to militate against this interpretation,
and to establish the common one, that the spectators are
described as expressing their astonishment at hearing, each
one in his own tongue, these Galileans who knew no foreign
language, speaking the wonderful works of God (Acts ii. 8) ;
and more than this, we have the various nations distinctly
named in whose languages the apostles spoke. But we cannot
possibly think that all these nations spoke different languages,
for it is certain that, in the cities of Cappadocia, Pontus,
Lesser Asia, Phrygia, Pamphylia, Gyrene, and in the parts
of Libya and Egypt inhabited by Grecian and Jewish
Colonies, the Greek would at that time be in general better
understood than the ancient language of the country, and as
this must have been known to the writer of the Acts, he
could not have intended to specify so many different lan
guages. There will remain out of the whole catalogue of
languages, only the Persian, Syriac, Arabic, Greek, and Latin.
eincc he refers to the hour of the day, in order to refute the charge of
intoxication, should not also refer to that other fact (supposing it
to exist), which would have completed his proof.
1 The word yXuxrva, like the German Zttngc [and the English
tongue], is used both for the bodily organ of speech, and for a language
or dialect.
14 THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE.
It also deserves notice, that the inhabitants of Judea are men
tioned, who spoke the same language as the Galileans, only
with a slight difference of pronunciation. Since, then, to
retain the ancient view of the gift of tongues creates diffi
culties in this passage, which is the only one that can serve to
support it ; while several parts of the narrative oppose it, and
every thing that is said elsewhere of this gift (^apio-^ua) leads
to a very different interpretation, the more ancient view
becomes very uncertain, though we cannot arrive at a perfectly
clear and certain conclusion respecting the facts which form
the groundwork of the narrative. Perhaps the difficulty in
the passage may be obviated in this way. It was not unusual
to designate all the disciples of the Lord, Galileans, and it
might be inferred from this common appellation that they
were all Galileans by birth ; but it by no means follows that
this was actually the case. Among the so-called Galileans,
some might be found whose mother-tongue was not the
Galilean dialect, and who now felt themselves impelled to
express the fulness of their hearts in their own provincial
dialect, which through Christianity had become a sacred
language to them, though hitherto they had been accustomed
to consider the Hebrew only in that light ; 1 and it might
also happen that some who lived on the confines of Galilee,
had learned the language of the adjacent tribes, which they
now made use of, in order to be better understood by
foreigners. Thus the speaking in foreign languages wrould be
only something accidental, and not the essential of the new
language of the Spirit.2 This new language of the Spirit is
that which Christ promised to his disciples as one of the
essential marks of the operation of the Holy Spirit on their
hearts. Indeed, the promise that they should speak with
new tongues3 appears only in the critically suspected addition
1 See Acts xxii. 2. Wetstein on Acts vi. 1. On this point the views
of the Palestinian theologians would differ, according as their general
mode of thinking was more or less contracted.
2 Whatever interpretation be adopted of this passage, it will be no
more than a conjecture for the solution of that difficulty, nor can any be
given with the degree of certainty equal to what may be attained
respecting the gift of tongues in a general point of view.
3 This evidently denoted such tongues or languages as were not yet in
the world. Had the person who committed this tradition to writing
intended foreign languages not acquired by study, he would certainly
have made use of a different expression.
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE. 15
to the Gospel of Mark, but it does not follow that a true
tradition does not lie at the basis of it ; and if Christ in the
other Gospels has not literally made use of this expression,
still we find what is allied to it in meaning, where he speaks
of the new powers of utterance which would be imparted by
the Holy Spirit to the disciples, " I will give you a mouth and
wisdom," Luke xxi. 15. Thus this expression, " to speak with
new tongues," would mean, to speak with such tongues as the
Spirit gave them ; other tongues than those hitherto used,
originally intended to mark the great revolution effected by
Christianity in the dispositions of men wherever it found
entrance, among the rude as well as the civilized.1 Yet we do
not venture to assume that the meaning of the expression
remained invariably the same, for this would be inconsistent
with its use in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, of which
we shall speak hereafter. As the original form of the expres
sion in the Christian phraseology gradually was shortened in
many ways,2 so likewise there was a gradual alteration in the
1 Gregory the Great beautifully remarks, in his Homil. in Evang.
1. ii. H. 29 : "Fideles quique, qui jam vitse veteris secularia verba
derelinquunt, sancta autem mysteria insonanfc, conditoris sui laudes
et potenti am quantum prevalent, narrant, quid aliud faciunt, nisi
novis linguis loquunturT The view I have here taken is nearly the
same as that of Herder in his Treatise on the Pentecostal Gift of
Tongues, — of Hase, and particularly of Bauer, in his valuable essay on
the subject in the Tubinger Zeitechrift fur Theologie, 1830, part ii.,
to which I am indebted for some modifications of my own view. My
honoured friend Steudel, in the same periodical, adopts a view essentially
the same. It has also found an advocate in Dr. Schulz. With Bleek
(see his learned and acute Dissertations in the Studien und Kritikcri)
I agree in the general view of the subject, but not in the explanation of
the word y\£>ffffa. Other grounds apart, adduced by Bauer, it appears
to me far more natural to deduce the designation for the new form of
Christian inspiration, in reference to the Hebrew fmft as well as the
Greek 7 Awtrer a, from the language of common life, rather than from the
schools of grammarians. But the question, whether, in this connexion,
the word must originally be understood of the organ of language
(according to Bauer), or of the kind of language, does not appear to me
to be so very important, for in this instance both meanings of the word
are closely allied.
2 Winer justly remarks, in the last edition of his Grammar, p. 534,
(Grammatik des Neutcstamentlichen Sprachidioms, 4th Ed., Leipzig,
1836), that, in the phrase yXwaa-ais AoA.6?j/, a word like Kaivais cannot
legitimately be supplied ; but it may be assumed that, from the original
complete phrase, after it had once acquired a fixed meaning, a shorter
elliptical phrase was formed, as there was occasion to employ it frequently.
1G THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE.
meaning ; that alteration, namely, of which many examples
are elsewhere found in the history of language, that a word
which at first was altogether the general sign of a certain idea,
became in later times, as various shades of meaning were
attached to this idea, limited to one particular application of
it. Thus it came to pass, that an expression which originally
denoted the new language of Christians under the influence of
the Spirit generally, afterwards, when various modifications
of such language had been formed, became limited to that
kind in which the immediate influences of the Spirit predomi
nated, and presented itself in the higher self-consciousness as
the specially ecstatic form,1, while the discursive activity of the
1 This continued to be the general use of the term for the first two
centuries, until, the historical connexion with the youthful age of the
church being broken, the notion of a supernatural gift of tongues was
formed. On this point it is worth while to compare some passages of
Irenaeus and Tertullian. Irenseus (lib. v. c. 9) cites what Paul says of
the wisdom of the perfect, and then adds, Paul calls those perfect, " Qui
perceperunt Spiritum Dei, et omnibus linguis loquuntur per Spiritum
Dei, quemadmodum et ipse loquebatur, Kadus teal TTO\\W aKovo^ev
dSeA^wv %v rp fKKhrjaria irpofyyTiKa xapia/JiaTa f"X&vrotV Kal TravToSaircus
\O,XOVVTU>V Sia TOU TT^CU/XOTOS yX&ffcrais Kal TO, KpvQia TWV avQp&Trtav els
(pavepbu ay6vTwt' eirl T<£ (Tvpfyspovn Kal TO. ^.vcrriipia rov Geov fKSi-rjyov-
juKEvaw, quos et spiritales apostolus vocat." Though some persons think
the term TravroSaTraTs undoubtedly refers to the languages of various
nations, I do not see how that can be, according to its use at that time,
though the original meaning of the word might be so understood. It
is particularly worthy of notice, that Ireneeus represents this gift as one
of the essential marks of Christian perfection, as a characteristic of the
spiritales. We cannot well comprehend how he could suppose any thing
so detached and accidental as speaking in many foreign languages, to
stand in so close and necessary a connexion with the essence of Chris
tian inspiration. Besides, he speaks of it as one of those gifts of the
Spirit, which continued to exist in the church even in his own times.
He evidently considers the yXSxrcrais \a\e7v as something allied to
7rpo<p7jT€ueiy. To the latter, he attributes the faculty of bringing to
light the hidden thoughts of men, and to the former that of publishing
divine mysteries. Pie sees nothing but this in the gift of tongues at
the effusion of the Holy Spirit, and, in reference to that event, places
together " prophetari et loqui linguis," 1. iii. c. 12. Tertullian
demands of Marcion to point out among his followers proofs of ecstatic
inspiration : " Eclat aliqucm psalmum, aliquam visionem, aliquam
orationem duntaxat spiritualem in ecstasi, i. e. amentia, si qua lingusa
interpretatio accesserit." Evidently in this connexion, the term
lingua, expressing speaking in an ecstasy, which, since what is spoken
in this state cannot be generally intelligible, an interpretation must
accompany. Tertullian also, in the same passage (adv. Marcion,
BY THE APOSTLE PAUL. 81
aliment. We may also infer from his peculiar disposition, as
well as from various hints he gives of himself, that in legal
piety, according to the notions of the strictest Pharisaism, he
strove to go beyond all his companions. But in proportion to
the earnestness of his striving after holiness — the more he
combated the refractory impulses of an ardent and powerful
nature, which refused to be held in by the reins of the law —
so much more ample were his opportunities for understanding
from his own experience the woful discord in human nature
which arises when the moral consciousness asserts its claims as
a controlling law, while the man feels himself constantly
carried away, in defiance of his better longing and willing, by
the force of ungodly inclination. Paid could not have depicted
this condition so strikingly and to the life, in the seventh
chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, if he had not gained the
knowledge of it from personal experience. It was advan
tageous for him that he passed over to Christianity from a
position where, by various artificial restraints and prohibitions,
he had attempted to guard against the incursions of unlawful
desires and passions, and to compel himself to goodness ; l for
thus he was enabled to testify from his own experience, (in
which he appears as the representative of all men of deep
moral feeling,) how deeply the sense of the need of redemption
is grounded in the moral constitution of man ; and thus like
wise from personal experience, he could describe the relation
of that inward freedom which results from faith in redemption,
to the servitude of the legal standing-point. In. his conflict
with himself while a Pharisee, Paul's experiences resemble
Luther's in the cloisters of Erfurt : though in the Pharisaic
dialectics and exposition of the law, he Avas a zealous and faith
ful disciple of Gamaliel, we cannot from this conclude that he
imbibed that spirit of moderation for which his master was so
distinguished, and which he showed in his judgment of the
new sect at the first, before it came into direct conflict with the
theology of his party. For the scholar, especially a scholar of so
energetic and marked a character, would imbibe the mental in-
1 As, for example, from the standing-point of Pharisaism, it has been,
said, " Instead of leaving every thing to the free movements of the dis
position, a man should force himself to do this or that good by a direct
von-. Vows are the enclosures of holiness." rmrc; rp cni:. See Pirke
Avoth. § 13.
VOL. I. G
82 SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY
flucnces of his teacher, only so far as they accorded with his own
peculiarities. His unyielding disposition,, the fire of his nature,
and the fire of his youth, made him a vehement persecuting
zealot against all who opposed the system that was sacred in his
eyes. Accordingly, no sooner did the new doctrine in the hands
of Stephen assume a hostile aspect 1 against the Pharisaic theo-
1 The question has been raised, whether Paul saw and heard Jesus
during his earthly life! We have not the data for answering the ques
tion. In his Epistles, we find nothing conclusive either one way or the
other. Olshausen thinks that it may be inferred from 2 Cor. v. 16, that
Paul really knew Jesus during his earthly life, Kara a-dgKa. Paul, in that
passage, he understands as saying, " But if 1 knew Christ, as indeed I
did know him, according to the flesh, in his bodily earthly appearance,
yet now I know him so no more." Against this interpretation I will not
object with Baur, in his Essay " On the Party of Christ in the Corinthian
Church," in the Tubingen Zeitscliriftfur Theologie, 1831, part iv. p. 95,
that he could not mean this, because it would have been undervaluing
Christ in his state of humiliation, which would be in contradiction to
those passages in which he attributes to that state the highest abiding
importance, and says he is determined to know nothing save Christ and
him crucified. For though the remembrance of Christ in the form of a
servant could never vanish from his mind, though he never could forget
what he owed to Christ the Crucified, yet now he kne\v him no longer
as living in human weakness, and subject to death, but as having risen
victoriously from death, the glorified one, now living in divine power
and majesty ; 2 Cor. xiii. 4. The relation in which it would have been
possible to stand to Christ while he lived in the form of a servant on earth,
could no longer exist. No one could now stand nearer to him, simply for
being a Jew; no one could hold converse with him in an outward manner,
as a being present to the senses : henceforth it was only possible to enter
into union with Christ as the glorified one, as he presented himself to
the religious consciousness in a spiritual, internal manner, by believing
on him as crucified for the salvation of mankind. In this respect, Paul
might well gay that now there could no longer be for him such " a know
ledge of Christ after the flesh." And we grant that he might have said
hy pathetically, If I had known Christ heretofore after the flesh, had I
stood in any such outward communion with him as manifest in the flesh,
yet now such a communion would have lost all its importance for me
(such a value as those Judaizers attribute to it who make it the sign of
genuine apostleship) ; but now I know Christ after the spirit, like all
those who enjoy spiritual communion with him. But Paul could only
say this in a purely hypothetical form, supposing something to be which
really was not ; for allowing that he had seen and heard Jesus with his
bodily senses, his opponents would have been far from attaching any im
portance to such seeing and hearing, as it could have been affirmed with
equal truth of many Jews, who stood in an indifferent or even hostile
position towards Christ. The reference in this passage can be only to
such a " knowing of Christ after the flesh," as belonged to the other apo-
13 Y THE APOSTLE PAUL.
logy, than he became its most vehement persecutor. After the
martyrdom of Stephen, when many adherents of the gospel
sought for safety by flight, Paul felt himself called to counter
work them in the famed city of Damascus, where the new sect
was gaining ground. And he hastened thither, after receiving
full powers for committing all the Christians to prison from the
Sanhedrim, who, as the highest ecclesiastical authority among
the Jews, were allowed by the Romans to inflict all disci
plinary punishment against the violators of the law.1
As for the great mental change which Paul experienced in
the course of this journey, undertaken for the extinction of
the Christian faith, it is quite possible that this event may
strike us as sudden and marvellous, only because the history
records the mere fact, without the various preparatory and
connecting circumstances which led to it ; but, by making-
use of the hints which the narrative furnishes to fill up the
outline, we may attempt to gain the explanation of the whole,
on purely natural principles.
Paul — (it would be said by a person adopting this view of
the event) — had received many impressions which disturl ed
the repose of his truth-loving soul ; he had heard the tempe
rate counsels of his revered instructor Gamaliel ; he lu.d
listened to the address of Stephen, to whom he was allied in
natural temperament, and had witnessed his martyrdom.
But he was still too deeply imbued with the spirit of Phari-
stles, since only to this could any religious value be attached against
which Paul might feel himseltcalled to protest. For this reason I must
agree with Baur, who understands x§l(rT^s here, not of the person of
Jesus, but of the Messiah, a Messiah known after the flesh, as from the
early Jewish standing-point. I also believe with Baur, that if Paul had
intended a personal reference, he would have said 'lyaovv xsiffT^ and 1
cannot admit the force of the objection which Olshausen makes to this
interpretation, that it would require the article before xgiff-ruv, for it
means not the Messiah definitively, but generally a Messiah.
1 If Damascus at that time still belonged to a Itoman province, the
Sanhedrim could exercise its authority there, in virtue of the right
secured every where to the Jews to practise their worship in their own
manner. If 'the city was brought under the government of the Arabian
King Aretas, the Sanhedrim could still reckon on his support, in conse
quence of the connexion he had formed with the Jews; perhaps he him
self had gone over to Judaism. The Jews in Damascus might also
possess great influence by means of the women, who were almost all
converts to Judaism. Josephus, Do Bell. Jud. ii. 20, 2.
84 SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY
saism, to surrender himself to these impressions, so contrary
to the prevailing bent of his mind. He forcibly repressed
them ; he rejected the thoughts that involuntarily rose in his.
mind in favour of the new doctrine, as the suggestions of
Satan, whom he regarded as the sole contriver of this rebel
lion against the authority of the ancient traditions, and
accordingly set himself with so much the greater ardour
against the new sect. Yet he could not succeed altogether in
suppressing these rising thoughts, and in silencing the voice
of conscience, which rebuked his fanaticism. A conflict arose
in his soul. While in this state, an outward impression was
added, which brought the internal process to maturity. Not
far from Damascus he and his followers were overtaken by a
violent storm ; the lightning struck Paul, and he fell sense
less to the ground. He attributed this catastrophe to the
avenging power of the Messiah, whom in the person of his
disciples he was persecuting, and, confounding the objective
and subjective, converted this internal impression into an
outward appearance of Christ -to him : blinded by the light
ning, and stunned by the fall, he came to Damascus. — But
admitting this explanation as correct, how are we to explain
by natural causes the meeting of Paul with Ananias '? Even
here we may supply many particulars which are not expressly
mentioned in the narrative. Since Ananias • was noted even
among the Jews as a man of strict legal piety, it is not impro
bable that he and Paul were previously acquainted with one
another at Jerusalem. At all events, Paul had heard of the
extraordinary spiritual gifts said to be possessed by Ananias,
and the thought naturally arose in his mind, that a man held
in so much repute among the Christians, might be able to
heal him and recover him from his present unfortunate con
dition ; and while occupied with this thought, his imagination
formed it into a vision. On the other hand, we may sup
pose, that Ananias had heard something of the great change
that had taken place in Paul ; and yet might not give full
credence to the report, till a vision corresponding to Paul's,
and explicable on similar psychological principles, had over
come his mistrust.
In reference to this explanation, we must certainly allow
the possibility that a change like that which took place in
Paul might have been prepared by impressions of the kind
BY THE APOSTLE PAUL.
mentioned ; but the narrative will not countenance either the
necessity or probability of such a supposition. History fur
nishes us with numerous examples of the power of religious
fanaticism over minds that in other respects have been suscep
tible of the true and the good, and yet, while under its
influence, have used those very things to confirm them in
their delusion which might seem fitted to rescue them from
it. It is, therefore, quite consistent with the powerful cha
racter of Paul to believe that, in the martyrdom of Stephen,
he saw only the power of the evil spirit over the mind of one
who had been seduced from the pure faith of his fathers ; and
that hence he felt a stronger impulse to counterwork the pro
pagation of a doctrine which could involve in such ruin men
distinguished by their disposition and their talents. Besides,
if only the impression which a storm with its attendant cir
cumstances made upon him, was the fact that formed the
groundwork of that vision of Christ, it would ill agree with
this, that Paul's followers believed that they perceived some
thing similar to what befell him ; for this is only admissible,
if we suppose them to have been like-minded with Paul,
which could not be unless they were already Christians, or on
the way to Christianity. But such persons would hardly
attach themselves to a persecutor of Christians. l
Such attempts at explaining the narrative are suspicious,
because unusual natural appearances are made use of to bring
1 The variations in the narrative of these events contained in Acts
ix. xxii. and xxvi. prove nothing against the reality of the fact. Such
unimportant difl'erences might easily arise in the repetition of the nar
rative of an event so far removed from the circle of ordinary occur
rences ; and these differences need not be attributed to alterations in
the narrative by Paul himself, but may be supposed to originate in the
incorrectness of others in repeating it. As for the rest, if we assume
that his attendants received only a general impression of the pheno
menon, not BO definite as Paul's, for whom it was mainly intended; that
they saw a light, but no precise shape or figure ; that they heard a
voice, without distinguishing or understanding the words ; — it is easy
to perceive, that various representations would naturally be given of
the event. As this phenomenon, from its very nature, cannot be
judged of according to the laws of ordinary earthly communications and
perceptions, the difference in the perceptions of Paul and his attendants
argues nothing against its objective reality. We are too ignorant of
the laws which regulate the communications between a higher spiritual
world and men living in a world of the senses, to determine anything
precisely on these points.
86 SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY
down what is extraordinary into the circle of common events.
Instead, therefore, of following this explanation, which is
attended with great difficulties — we might rather conceive the
whole, independently of all outward phenomena, as an inward
transaction in Paul's mind, a spiritual revelation of Christ to
his higher self-consciousness ; and, in this light, we may view
the experiences which he had in his conflicts with himself'
while a Pharisee, and the impression of the discourse and
martyrdom of Stephen, as forming a preparation by which
his heart was rendered capable of receiving these internal
revelations of the Redeemer. The divine origin and the
reality of the fact will not be in the slightest degree affected
by this explanation ; for though we may conceive of outward
supernatural appearances — still there would be nothing more
than the means by which Paul would be prepared for that
internal revelation of Christ, which formed the basis of his
apostleship. The perceptions of the senses cannot have greater
certainty and reality than the facts of a higher self-conscious
ness, whereby a man receives revelations of an order of things
in which his true life has its root, far above the sensible world,
which he experiences and apprehends spiritually. And that
this was no self-illusion, capable of being psvchologically ex
plained,1 that extraordinary change would testify which was
1 Dr. Strauss says, in his "Leben Jesu," vol. ii. p. 656, " JSTeander
merely ventures to maintain an internal operation of Christ on the
Blind of Paul, and only adds the supposition of an outward appearance,
as if it were a favour for his readers to grant it ; and even the internal
operation he makes superfluous, by paiticularising various influences
which in a natural way might bring about such a revolution in such an
individual's mind." But as to what concerns the latter, the conclusion
from a possibility under certain presupposed circumstances, to that which
actually took place, in the absence of any historical proof of its taking
place, is by no means justifiable, unless a person argues on an assump
tion which I do not admit, namely, that every thing must proceed
according to the laws of natural psychological development, and that a
supernatural operation cannot take place. But according to a mode of
viewing this subject, which is as different from the caricature of super-
naturalism, drawn by Dr. Strauss and others, (let my readers compare
the words of truth in Twesten's Preface to the second volume of his
" Dogmatik,") as from the views of Dr. Strauss himself on the relation,
of God to the world — a supernatural operation by no means excludes
a preparation in the natural development of man, nor does the latter
make the former superfluous. With respect to the other point, the out
ward appearance of Christ, I do not indeed hold this as absolutely
1JY THE APOSTLE PAUL. 87
the result in Paul of this internal transaction — this the whole
course of his apostolic ministry testifies, which may be traced
to his inward experience, as the effect to its cause. But yet
the manner in which his attendants were affected by what hap
pened on this occasion contradicts the supposition of a merely
internal transaction, even if we could resolve on ascribing the
state in which Paul came to Damascus to the power of an
internal impression.1
It will be of great service to compare with the narrative
the Acts the expressions used by Paul in his Epistles in
reference to this event, so important to him as the commence
ment of a new era in his life. As he often refers to it in
opposition to his Jewish adversaries, who were unwilling to
acknowledge him as an apostle ; so he had a confident per
suasion that the apostolic commission was given him by
Christ in the same manner as to the other apostles ; this is
expressed most fully and strongly in Gal. i. 1. Yet here we
need not suppose an outward event to be meant, but may
rather understand it of an internal transaction such as we
have described. In the sixteenth verse, Paul evidently speaks
of an internal communication of Christ, of an inward rev<
lation of him to his self-consciousness,2 whereby, independently
requisite for explaining the great revolution in the spiritual life of Paul,
but the circumstances mentioned in the text, compared with the expres
sions of Paul himself, compel me to admit its reality, and I recognise
the importance of it for Paul, in order that, like the other apostles, he
might be able to testify of Christ as risen from the dead.
1 The notion, that the vision which immediately preceded Pauls
conversion is the one described by himself in 2 Cor. xii. 2, which in
modern times has been revived by several distinguished theologians,
has every thing against it : in the latter, Paul describes his elevation m
spirit to a higher region of the spiritual world ; in the vision which
occasioned his conversion, there was a revelation of Christ coming down
to him while consciously living on the earth. The immediate impres
sion of the first was depressing and humiliating ; the second was con
nected with an extraordinary mental elevation, a tendency to pride and
vain-glory. With the first his Christian consciousness began ; the secon
marked one of the most exalted moments of his inward life, after he had
Ion- lived in communion with Christ ; and by such a foretaste of
heavenly existence, he was refreshed under his manifold conflicts, and
animated to renew his earthly labours. The date of fourteen years
mentioned here, is of no chronological use, further than to satisfy us,
that the date of Paul's conversion must be false, according to which he
must have written this exactly fourteen years later.
2 It is most natural to understand the phrase iv IpA as denoting
something internal.
88 SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY
of all human instruction, he was qualified to preach Christ.
But something in addition to this is intended where Paul, in
1 Cor. ix. 1, appeals to his having seen Christ as a mark of
his apostleship.1 But this might refer to an ecstatic vision,
similar to what Paul himself describes in 2 Cor. xii. 2. On
the contrary, something different from this must be intended
in the 15th chapter of 1st Corinthians, where he places the
appearance of Christ to himself on an equality with all the
other appearances of the risen Saviour. And this declaration
1 It must be evident to every unprejudiced person, that this cannot
refer to Paul's having seen Jesus during his earthly life, (though a pos
sible occurrence,) for it would have added nothing to his apostolic
authority ; nor yet to the mere knowledge of the doctrine of Christ.
Riickert, in his Com. on this passage, maintains that it refers rather to
one of the appearances of Christ, which were granted to him in a state
of ecstatic vision, Acts xviii. 9, xxii. 17, than to that which occasioned
his conversion, especially since an appearance of Christ of this kind is
not mentioned either in Acts ix. xxii. xxvi. nor in Gal. i. 12 — 26. On
the other hand, the following considerations deserve attention. Since,
as Riickert himself acknowledges, the reading in that passage is to be
preferred, in which the words, "Am I not an apostle 1" are immediately
followed by, "Have I not seen Christ1?" we may infer that Paul adduced
his having seen Christ as a confirmation of his apostleship ; as after
wards, for the same purpose, he adduces the success of his efforts in
founding the Corinthian church. Without doubt, he urged this against
his Judaizing opponents, who disputed his call to the apostleship on the
ground, that he had not been appointed by Christ himself like the other
apostles. In this connexion it is most natural to expect, that Paul
would speak of that appearance of Christ which marked the commence
ment of his apostolic career, that real appearance of Christ which he
classes with the other appearances of the risen Saviour, 1 Cor xv. 8, and
not a mere vision. Riickert indeed maintains, that Paul made no dis
tinction between the two kinds of appearances, for " otherwise he would
have attributed no value to visions, as mere figments of the imagination."
But this conclusion is not correct ; for we may suppose something be
tween a real objective appearance, and a natural creation of the imagina
tion formed in the usual psychological manner, — such an operation of the
Divine Spirit on the higher self-consciousness, in virtue of which what
is inwardly apprehended presents itself to the person so influenced
under a sensible image, whereby the imagination is turned into an organ,
for what is inwardly apprehended by the operation of the Divine Spirit.
That such a communication of the Divine Spirit may be distinguished
both from a real appearance to the senses, and from a mere result of the
imagination, is evident from many passages of Holy Writ, as for example,
Peter's vision, Acts x. 12. The passage Gal. i. 16, does not exclude an
appearance of Christ, but it was foreign to the apostle's object to specify
it. But the word pffieva. not /njSeV, Acts ix. 7, certainly implies, that
Paul, in distinction from his attendants, had seen a 2>erson.
BY THE APOSTLE PAUL. 89
of Paul has additional weight, because, as is apparent from
the passages before quoted in the Second Epistle to the
Corinthians, he could so accurately distinguish an ecstatic
state from a state of ordinary self-consciousness. Hence we
also sec how important it was for him, as well as the other
apostles, to be enabled to testify, on the evidence of their own
senses, of that great fact, the foundation of Christian faith
and Christian hope — the real resurrection of Christ and his
glorified personal existence.
Lastly, we by no means suppose a magical influence on
Paul, by which he was carried away, and converted against
his will. According to the view we have taken of this event,
we suppose an internal point of connexion, without which, no
outward revelation or appearance could have become an
inward one ; without which, any outward impression that
could have been made, however powerful, would have been
transient in its results. But in his case, the love for the
true and the good discernible even through his errors, though
repressed by the power of his passions and prejudices, was to
be set free from its thraldom only by a mighty impression.
Yet no external miracle whatever could have converted a
Caiaphas into a preacher of the gospel.
It might be expected, that Paul could not at once, after
such an impression, enter on a new course of action. Every
thing which hitherto had been the motive and aim of his
conduct, now seemed as nothing. Sorrow must have been
the predominant feeling of his crushed spirit. He could not
instantaneously recover from so overwhelming an impression,
which gave a new direction to his whole being. He was
reduced to a state of mental and bodily weakness, from which
he could not restore himself. He passed three days without
food. This was for him the point of transition from death to
a new life ; and nothing can so vividly express his feelings at
this awful crisis, as the exclamation which he himself, revert
ing to his earlier state, puts in the lips of the man who, with
the deepest consciousness of inward slavery under the violated
law, and with earnest aspirations after freedom, pours forth
his whole heart in the words, " 0 wretched man that I am !
who shall deliver me?" — Nor is it at all probable that, in this
state, he would seek for social intercourse. Nothing could
k»33 agree with his feelings than intercourse with the Jews ;
SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY
nor could he easily prevail on himself to seek out the Chris
tians, whom he had hitherto persecuted. To a man in this
state of mind, nothing could be so welcome as solitude.
Hence it is by no means probable, that information of the
great change that had passed upon him would be conveyed
by other persons to Ananias. It is worthy of notice, that, in
order to attain a full consciousness of his new life, and to
make the transition from this intermediate state of contrition,
to a new life of active exertion in communion with Christ, he
was brought into connexion with the existing Christian
church, by the instrumentality of one of its members. In
communion with other believers, he first obtained what he
could not find in his solitude. When he prayed to Christ
who had appeared to him, that he would help him in his
distress, that he would enlighten both his bodily and mental
eyes ; it was promised to him in a vision, that a well-known
enlightened man, belonging to the church at Damascus,
whom he probably knew by name and sight, should be the
instrument of his spiritual and bodily restoration. When
Ananias, in obedience to a divine call, visited him, Paul recog
nised the person to whom the vision had referred him, and
hence felt the fullest assurance, that in communion with him
he should be made partaker of a new and higher principle
of life. Ananias introduced Paul to the other Christians in
the city ; after he had been strengthened by spending several
days in their society, he felt himself impelled to enter the
synagogues, and testify in behalf of that cause, which hereto
fore he had fiercely persecuted.1 Whether he considered it
best, after bearing this first testimony among the Jews, to
1 It is difficult to consider ripcpcu rti/es in Acts ix. 19, and rj/^pats
tKavcus in the 23d verse, as equivalent terras. Yet it cannot be proved
from these words, that Luke by the latter meant to make a break in
Paul's residence at Damascus, occasioned by a journey into Arabia, but
the succession of events as narrated in the Acts leads to consider this
as most natural. The ^uepat -ni/es merely expresses the few days which
Paul, just after his baptism, spent in the fellowship of the Christians at
Damascus. The following phrase, ical evOecas, intimates, that immedi
ately after he had spent some days with the disciples he entered into the
synagogues ; and the rj/j.epai iicuval denote the whole period of Paul's
stay at Damascus. Within this whole period of 7),uepm iicaval, of which
nothing more is told in the Acts, we mu&t place Paul's journey into
Arabia, of which we should not have known but for the mention of it in
the Epistle to the Galatians.
BY THE APOSTLE PAUL.
allow its impression to work silently on their minds, without
personally attempting to enforce it ; or whether the plots of
the Jews induced him to quit the place, we are not certa
be this as it may, he visited the neighbouring parts of Arabia,
where he found opportunities for publishing the gospel among
the Jews, who were spread over the country,
returned again to Damascus. Whether the Jews, whose
ano-er he had already excited by his former preaching,
as soon as they heard of his coming, endeavoured to
lav hold of, a person who was so capable of injuring Judaism;
or whether they were exasperated by his renewed addresses m
their synagogues, he was obliged to consult his safety by
nVht as his life was threatened by their machinations.—
fiir was this man, who shunned no danger in his subscquen
career, though now in the first glow of conversion, a s<
when the mind is generally most prone to extravagance— so
far was he from indulging in that enthusiastic ardour which
seeks and craves for martyrdom!2 He was let down by 1
friends in a basket, through the window of a house, b
i Schroder, in his Chronological Remarks on the Life of Paul ha*
lately maintained that the words of Paul in Gal. i. 16, must be thus
explained by means of the antithesis; he had not been i instruct*
men for his apostolic calling, but had retired to the neighbouring distric
of Arabia, in order to prepare himself in an independent manner and
in «olilude. But had he meant to say this, he would scarcely have
cho?en the general designation 'Apa&a, but rather have substituted for
it fon^'AH&w, or simply *p,/«,x, by which he would have marked
more distinctly the object of this &WPXecr0«. It « psychologically most
probable that Paul, after Ananias had visited him in his solitude, and
revived his spirit, would not go again into retirement, but rather would
seek the communion of other believers and, after he had been edified
and strengthened by them, would feel himseli impelled forthwith ta
bear his testimony before those who held his former faith. This view is
also strongly confirmed by the passage in the Epistle to the Gala
fur the connected sense seems to be as follows : As soon as God revealed
his Son to me, that I might publish him among the Gent. es,I publisl
the gospel in an independent manner, according to this revelation.
Paul expresses this sentiment both in a positive and negative f
I was not intrusted for my calling, by any human authority yhatever
by none of the apostles at Jerusalem, but immediately travelled into
Arabia, there to proclaim the gospel. Compare Augers .profound and
acute inquiry, " DC Temporum in Actis Apostolorum Ratione, Lipsire,
1823«< Thfglorying in infirmities," (among which he reckons this flight,)
rck TTJS &cr0eU'as Kai/X5<r0ai, ia one feature in his character which d
tinguished him from enthusiasts: 2 Cor. xi. 30.
92 SPEEAD OF CHRISTIANITY
against the wall of the city, that he might escape unnoticed
by the Jews, who were lying in wait for him at the gates.
After three years had thus expired from the time of his con
version,1 he resolved, about the year 39,2 once more to return
to Jerusalem, that he might become personally acquainted
1 Three years after his conversion, namely, on the supposition that the
terminus a quo the years are reckoned in the passage of the Epistle to
the Galatians, is the date of his conversion.
2 This circumstance in Paul's life furnishes one of the few chrono
logical marks for its history. When Paul fled from Damascus three
years after his conversion, that city was under the government of King
Aretas of Arabia Petr0ea, 2 Cor. xi. 32. But since Damascus belonged
to a Koman Province, Aretas must have been in possession of this city
under very peculiar circumstances. Siisskind in his essay in Bengel's
Arcliiv. 1. 2. p. 314; Wurm in his essay on the Chronology of PauFs
life, in the Tubinger Zeitsclirift fur Theologie, 1833, 1st part, p. 27;
and Auger, p. 161, agree in thinking, that we are not quite justified in
admitting that Aretas was at that time in possession of Damascus, as it
is a conclusion nowise favoured by other historical accounts ; for if Da
mascus was then under the Eoman government, the Ethnarch of Aretas
might have ventured to place a watch before the gates of the city, or,
through his influence with the Eoman authorities, have obtained permis
sion for the Jews to do this. Yet it is difficult to believe, that if
Damascus belonged to a Roman province, the Arabian Ethnarch would
venture to surround the city with a watch, in order to get the Eoman
citizen into his power; or that the Eoman authorities would allow of
Lis doing so, or at his request expose a Eoman citizen to the wrath of
the Jews. Although the history, in which there are besides so many
breaks, does not inform us of such an occupancy of Damascus, yet the
consideration of this passage favours this supposition. Now the circum
stances by which Aretas might have gained possession of the city were
probably these. The Emperor Tiberius, as the ally of King Herod
Agrippa, whose army had been defeated by Aretas, commanded Yitel-
lius, the governor of Syria, to get possession of him either dead or alive.
But while Vitellius was preparing to execute these orders, and various
circumstances delaying his entering on the campaign, news arrived of
the Emperor's death, which took place in March of the year 37, and
Vitellius was thus stopped, in his military movements. Aretas might
take advantage of this interval to gain possession of the city. But we
must not suppose that the city thus snatched from the Eomans remained
long in his hands, and it is probable that, as in the second year of the
reign of the Emperor Caligula, A.D. 38-39, the affairs of Arabia were
settled, Damascus also was not left unnoticed. If we place the flight of
Paul from Damascus in 39, then his conversion must have been in A.D.
36, since it must have occurred three years before, and we also fix the
same date for Stephen's martyrdom. From the absence of chronological
information respecting the events of those times, we cannot fix with cer
tainty the date of Paul's conversion ; yet the computation which places
it in A.I>. 36 has this in its favour, that it allows neither too long nor
BY THE APOSTLE PAUL. 93
with Peter, as the individual who at that time maintained
the highest reputation in the new church, and exercised the
greatest influence in all its concerns. But as he was known
at Jerusalem only as the persecutor, every one avoided him,
till Barnabas, a distinguished teacher of the church, who, as a
Hellenist, felt less a stranger to him, and might formerly have
had some connexion with him, introduced him to the rest.
His Hellenistic origin occasioned his holding many conversa
tions and disputations on Judaism and the Christian doctrine
with the Hellenistic Jews.
It may be asked, Avhether Paul took the same ground in
his controversies with his countrymen at this early period, as
in later times ; and this is connected with the mode of the de
velopment of his Christian convictions and doctrinal views.
When he first came to the knowledge of the gospel, did he
recognise at the same time its independence of the Mosaic
law ? To do this, must have been most difficult for one who
had so lately renounced the principles of Pharisaism : for we
generally find that others of this sect who embraced Christ
ianity, attempted to combine their former tenets with thoso
of the gospel. Ananias, the first instructor of the apostle,
was universally reverenced on account of his legal piety,
such an individual, therefore, must have been very far from-
wishing to effect a disruption of Christianity from the Mosaic
ceremonial law. At the time of Paul's conversion, this was.
the tone of sentiment universally prevalent among Christians ;
for, as we have remarked, it was only after the martyrdom of
Stephen, and owing to the results of that event, that new
light on this subject from various quarters gradually broke in
upon them. But we are not justified in assuming, that the-
same causes led Paul to the views he adopted. We cannot
attribute much efficacy to influences from without, by the
communication of doctrines and views, in the case of a man
so distinguished for his great independent peculiarity of
character. We are compelled to believe him, when he testifies
so undoubtingly, that he received the gospel, in the manner
he was wont to publish it, not by human instruction, but only
by a communication of the Spirit of Christ. Some cxceptionr
short, a time for the events which took place in the Christian church,
from the period of Christ's Ascension, to the martyrdom of Stephen and
the conversion of Paul.
04 SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY
however, must be made in reference to the historical records,
containing the discourses and precepts of Christ ; with these
he became acquainted through the ordinary channel of
human tradition, and we find him accordingly appealing on
certain occasions to such traditions, or to words uttered by
the Lord. 1
As Paul felt himself compelled to examine, independently
of others, the depths of the truth made known by Christ, he
must have thought it a matter of importance to obtain a
collection of the sayings of Christ, on which all further deve
lopments of the new doctrine must depend, and from which
they must proceed. We cannot suppose that he would satisfy
himself with single expressions casually obtained from oral
intercourse with the apostles, whom he met so seldom, and
for so short a time. Besides, he says expressly in his Epistle
to the Galatians, that these interviews with the other apostles
were of no service towards his acquiring a deeper insight into
Christia-n doctrines. We are led to the supposition, that he
obtained written memoirs of the life of Christ, or at least, a
written collection of the sayings of Christ, if such existed, or
that he compiled one himself. But it is very probable that
such a collection, or several such collections, and written
memoirs of Christ's ministry, were in existence ; for, however
highly we may estimate the power of the living word in this
youthful period of the church, we cannot allow ourselves to
forget that we are not speaking of the age of rhapsodies, but
of one in which — especially wherever Grecian cultivation had
found its way — historical composition was much practised.
Might we not expect, then, that some memorials would bo
speedily committed to writing of what moved their hearts, and
occupied their thoughts so intensely ; although a longer time
1 1 Cor. xi. 23. On this passage, Scliulz justly remarks, that Paul uses
ctTrb not iraga to signify that what he "received" was not immediately but
mediately from, the Lord. What has been said by Olshausen and Mever
(on different grounds) against this interpretation, has not induced me to
give it up. The expression ira(>e\a.fiov cnrb rov Kvgiov is also by no means
unimportant. It was not so much the apostle's design to mark the
manner in which this tradition came to him, but only for what purpose
it was given, to represent as certain that this was the form in which the
Lord had instituted the Last Supper; hence also the repetition of the
term KVQIOS is not improper. Had Paul been speaking of a special reve
lation, by which this information was imparted, he would scarcely have
signified it by Tragt\a&w, but rather by
BY THE APOSTLE PAUL. '.'.'>
might elapse before any one resolved to attempt a delineation
of the whole life of Christ ? ' Many allusions to expressions of
Christ in the Pauline Epistles, besides his direct quotations of
Christ's words, point to such a collection of his discourses, of
which the apostle availed himself,2 and probably Marcion, who
1 Eusebius narrates (v. 10), probably in consequence of information
derived from Pantsenus, that the apostle Bartholomew had communi
cated to the so-called Indians to whom he published the gospel, a Hebrew
original document of the Evangelical History drawn up by Matthew,
which account we are plainly not justified to call in question. This
original document may indeed be the same which Papias entitles
(Eusebius, iii. 39) ffwra£ts TWV Xoyiw TOV Kvgiov. And I should by no
means object to understanding this to be a collection of the discourses of
the Lord — for it is in itself very probable that such a compilation would
be early made, as a store of materials for the development of Christian
doctrine — if what he had before said of Mark's writings did not intimate
that he meant both the discourses and actions of Christ ; for I cannot,
with Sclmeckenburger, trace the distinction, that Mark had compiled a
report of the discourses and actions of Christ, but Matthew only of his
discourses. In this case, Papias would have laid the emphasis on \6yia,
and have said TWV hoyiw TOV nvgiov (rvyraftv ; but now the emphasis
rests on the word avvra^iv, an orderly collection, not mere insulated
fragments ; (note to "2d edition). To this 3d edition, I must add, in
limitation of what 1 have here said, and of what Dr. Lucke has said
before me in the Studien und Kritiken, 1833, p. 501, certainly the
emphasis rests upon the word <nWa£is, as contrasted with a rhapsodical
description ; it may be intended that Papias wished to contrast the work
of Mark as a rhapsodical collection of the actions and discourses of
Christ, with the work of Matthew as an arranged collection of the say
ings of the Lord alone. Lastly, he says this only in a secondary sense of
Mark. The words peculiarly apply to Peter, from whose discourses
Mark must have borrowed the materials and the form of his work. Of
Peter, he says, fts irgbs TO.S xse'ia: tiroizlro TO.S SiSa<r«aAtas, aAA' oi>x tiffing
(Tvvra^iv TUV KvpiaKwv 7roiovtj.fi/os \oyiwv. Peter had composed his
addresses according to the wants of his hearers at the time, and not with
the intention of giving an orderly account of the discourses or sayings
of Christ. For this reason, Mark, who drew all his information from
these addresses, could compile nothing of that kind. The words of
Papias are therefore rather favourable than unfavourable to the suppo
sition, that the original work of Matthew was only a collection of the
sayings of Christ, as Schleiermacher maintained. As to Bartholomew's
taking such a document with him for his mission, something similar
may have occurred with other preachers of the gospel, whether Paul
obtained the same document or another. The Judai/ing tendency of
the document derived from Matthew, alleged by many, by no means
prevents me from admitting this ; it contains expressions which, by
Ebionitcs cleaving to the letter, might be interpreted according to their
mind ; but in which Paul, who penetrated deeper into the spirit, would
find an entirely different idea. — Sec Das Leben Jesu, pp. 9, 131, 140.
2 Das Leben JesK, pp. 157, 233, 241, 474.
96 SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY
owned no inspired authority besides Paul, had heard of such
a compilation of the memoirs of Christ, made use of by his
favourite apostle, and attempted by his criticisms on Luke's
writings, which were not altogether to his mind, to find out
what he considered as Pauline.1 Thus the words of Christ
given by tradition, were the foundation for the continued
development of Christian doctrine, to which, independently
of all other instructions, the illumination of the Holy Spirit
led the apostles. And we can easily make it apparent, that
many of the deep truths expressed by him, for example, in
reference to the relation of the law to the gospel, unfolded
themselves to his view, from hints pregnant with meaning,2
given by Christ himself. 3 Nor can we form any other judg
ment respecting him as a Christian teacher, than that he, by
the Spirit of Christ, understood the words of Christ made
known to him by tradition, in all their depth of meaning, and
thus learnt to develop the hidden fulness of divine truth
which they contained.
Certainly for those who gradually passed over to" Christianity
from Pharisaic Judaism, a considerable time might elapse
before the spirit of Christianity could divest itself of the
Pharisaic form. But it was otherwise with Paul, in whcm
Pharisaism had exhibited the most unsparing opposition to
the gospel, and who, without any such gradual transition, had
been seized at a critical moment by the power of the gospel,
and from being its most violent enemy, had become its most
1 " It is certain that lie (Marcion) acknowledged only the Epistles of
Paul, and an original gospel which, by a mistake, he believed that ho
had found quoted by Paul, as the genuine sources of Christian knowledge.
But as he proceeded on the fixed idea, that these ancient records no
longer existed in their original state, but had been falsified by the
Judaizers whose image often haunted him like a spectre, he attempted
by means of an arbitary criticism to restore them to their original form.
His supposed original gospel made use of by Paul, was a mutilation of
the Gospel of Luke. His criticism was so far from logical, that several
things were allowed to remain, which could only be brought into agree
ment with Marcion's system by a forced interpretation and a violation
of genuine Hermeneutics." Dr. Neander, in his Allgemeine Geschichte
der Christlichen Religion und Kirche, vol. i. p. 802. — [Tn.]
2 It will be evident that I do not mean say, what Christ himself
possessed as the fulness of meaning; but what presented itself to him
who received it with a susceptible disposition, as a germ of a new
spiritual creation.
3 DasLclen Jesu, pp. 133, 395, 431, 465.
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IX PALESTINE. 33
difference soon made its appearance. It showed itself in this
respect, that the Hellenists, dissatisfied with the mode of
distributing the alms, were mistrustful of the others, and
believed that they had cause to complain that their own poor
widows were not taken such good care of in the daily
distribution,1 as the widows of the Palestinian Jews ; whether
the fact was, that the apostles had hitherto committed this
business to Palestinian Jews, and these had either justly or
unjustly incurred the suspicion of partiality, or whether the
want of a regular plan for this business had occasioned much
irregularity and neglect of individuals, or whether the com
plaint was grounded more in the natural mistrust of the
Hellenists than in a real grievance, must be left undetermined,
from the want of more exact information. These complaints,
however, induced the apostles to establish a regular plan for
conducting this business, and since they could not themselves
combine the strict oversight of individuals, and the satisfaction
of each one's wants,2 with a proper attention to the principal
object of their calling, they thought it best to institute a par
ticular office for the purpose, the first regular one for adminis
tering the concerns of the church. Accordingly, they re
quired the church to entrust this business to persons who
enjoyed the general confidence, and were fitted for the office,
animated by Christian zeal, and armed with Christian pru
dence.3 Seven such individuals were chosen ; the number
being accidentally fixed upon as a common one, or being
adapted to seven sections of the church. Thus this office
originated in the immediate wants of the primitive church,
1 Neither from the expression SiaKovla, vi. 1, nor from the, phrase
tiia.Kove~iv rpaTTtfas, can it be inferred with certainty that the apostles
alluded only to the distribution of food among the poor widows. We
may be allowed to suppose that this was only one of the Tables of the
service they performed, and that it is mentioned to mark more
pointedly the distinction between the oversight of spiritual, and that of
secular concerns.
2 That they were required to undertake the business alone, instead
of entrusting it to deputies, cannot be proved from the language in the
Acts.
3 Acts vi. 3. The word vvfv^a (which is the true reading, for dyiov
and Kvpiov appear to be only glosses-;) denotes that inspiration for the
cause of the gospel which is requisite for every kind of exertion for the
kingdom of God ; aofyla signifies, that quality which is essential for
this office in particular, and imports in the New Testament, wisdom or
prudence.
VOL. T. D
34 THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE.
and its special mode of operation was marked out by the
peculiar situation of this first union of believers, which was
in some points dissimilar to that of the Jewish synagogue, or
of later churches. As it was called for by the pressure of
circumstances, it certainly was not intended to be perfectly
correspondent to an office in the Jewish synagogue, and
can by no means be considered parallel to that of a
common servant of the synagogue (Luke iv. 20), termed
fjn, stettj, Y,32 ntyti.1 It was of higher importance, for
at first it was the only one in the church besides the
apostolic, and required a special capability in the manage
ment of men's dispositions, which might be employed in ser
vices of a higher kind, and was such as without doubt
belonged to the general idea of aoqia. Neither was this
office altogether identical with that which at a later period
bore the same name,2 but was subordinate to the office of
presbyters. And yet it would be wrong to deny that the
later church office of this name developed itself from the
first, and might be traced back to it.3 Although, as is usual
in such affairs, when the ecclesiastical system became more
complex, many changes took place in the office of deacons ;
for example, the original sole appointment of deacons for the
distribution of alms, became afterwards subordinate to the
influence of the presbyters, who assumed the whole manage
ment of church affairs,4 and though many other secular
employments were added to the original one, yet the funda
mental principle as well as the name of the office remained.5
1 See Eothe's admirable Eemarks, p. 166.
2 As jChrysostom observes in his fourteenth Homily on the Acts, § 3.
3 As the Second Trullanian Council, c. 16, which was occasioned by
a special object, that the number of deacons for large towns might not
be limited to seven.
4 From Acts xi. 30, nothing more is to be inferred, than that when
presbyters were appointed for the general superintendence of the church,
the contributions intended for the church were handed over to them, as
formerly to the apostles, when they held the exclusive management of
affairs. It may be fairly supposed that the presbyters entrusted each of
the deacons with a sum out of the common fund for distribution in his
own department.
6 I find no reason (with Eothe, p. 166) to doubt this ; for the name
was well adapted to denote their particular employment, and to dis
tinguish them from persons acting in a more subordinate capacity, as
wnrjpeToi. Nor is it any objection to this, that in Acts xxi. 8 they are
merely called The Seven, for as the name of deacon was then the usual
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE. 35
In later times, we still find traces of the distribution of alms
being considered as the peculiar employment of deacons.1
Here, as in many other instances in the history of the church,
human weakness and imperfection subserved the divine
wisdom, and promoted the interests of the kingdom of God ;
for by this appointment of deacons for the Hellenistic part of
the church, distinguished men of Hellenistic descent and
education were brought into the public service of the church,
and the Hellenists, by their freer mental culture, were in
many respects better qualified rightly to understand and to
publish the gospel as the foundation of a method of salvation
independent of Judaism, and intended for all men equally
without distinction. The important consequences resulting
from this event will appear in the course of the history.
The institution of the office of presbyters was similar in its
origin to that of deacons. As the church was continually in
creasing in size, the details of its management also multiplied ;
the guidance of all its affairs by the apostles could no longer
be conveniently combined with the exercise of their peculiar
apostolic functions ; they also wished, in accordance with the
spirit of Christianity, not to govern alone, but preferred that
the body of believers should govern themselves under their
guidance ; thus they divided the government of the church,
which hitherto they had exercised alone, with tried men, who
formed a presiding council of elders, similar to that whicli
was known in the Jewish synagogues under the title of D^T,
Possibly, as the formal appointment of deacons
appellation of a certain class of officers in the church, Luke uses this
expression to distinguish them from others of the same name, just as
The Twelve denoted the apostles.
Hence, at the appointment of deacons, it was required, that they
should " not be greedy of filthy lucre," 1 Tim. iii. 8. Origen, in
Matt. t. xvi. § 22, ol SIO.KOVOI SIOIKOWTCS TO. TTJS fKK\Tjffias xp^ara ; and
Cyprian says of the deacon Felicissimus, pecunice commissce, sibi frau-
dator. Even in the apostolic age, the deacon's office appears to* have
extended to many other outward employments, and most probably the
word avTiX^is, ' Helps,' denotes the serviceableness of their office.
I Cor. xii. 28.
3 Bauer has lately maintained, that the general government of the
affairs of the church did not enter originally and essentially into the
^
idea of irpeo-^urepoi, but that originally every Trpea&vTtpos presided over
a small distinct Christian society. From this, one consequence would
follow which Bauer also deduces from it, that not a republican, but a
30 THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE.
arose from a specific outward occasion, a similar, though to
us unknown, event occasioned that of presbyters. They were
originally chosen as in the Synagogue, not so much for the
instruction and edification of the church, as for taking. the
lead in its general government.
But as to the provision made in the primitive church for
religious instruction and edification, we have no precise in-
monarchical element entered originally into the constitution of the
church, a position from which most important consequences would
follow. But against this assertion, we have many things to urge.
Since the appointment of presbyters in the Christian church entirely
corresponded with that of presbyters in the Jewish synagogue, at least in
their original constitution, so we may conclude,' that if a plurality of
elders stood at the head of the synagogue, the same was the case with
the first Christian church. But as the synagogue according to the an
cient Jewish constitution, was organized on the plan of the great Sanhe
drim at Jerusalem, we might expect that a whole college of elders would
have the direction of the synagogues, as such a college of elders was
really at the head of the Jews in a city. Luke vii. 3. The passages in
which one is distinguished by the title of 6 agxiffwaywyos, Luke viii.
41, 49; xiii. 14, may signify, that the individual mentioned stood at
the head of the Jewish congregation as nran itsi, and that the form of
government was rather monarchical. But admitting this, still the sup
position of a college of presbyters, presiding over the synagogue, would
not be invalidated, since we meet with a plurality of a.QXL^vvo-y(ayoi =
TTgea-fivTsgoi, Acts xiii. 15; xviii. 8 — 18. Yet we must make the limita
tion, that in smaller places an individual, as in larger towns a plurality,
stood at the head of the synagogue. It is most probable, that although
all presbyters were called dgx^wdyuyot, yet one who acted as president
was distinguished by the title of agxif^dyuyos, as primus inter pares.
In evidence of this, compare the first passage quoted from Luke with
Mark v. 22. This is important in reference to the later relation of
bishops to presbyters. The analogy to the Jewish synagogue allows us
to conclude, that at the head of the first church at Jerusalem, a general
deliberative college was placed from the beginning; a notion which
is favoured by a comparison with the college of apostles ; and in the
Acts, a plurality of presbyters always appears next in rank to the apo
stles, as representatives of the church at Jerusalem. If any one is dis
posed to maintain, that each of these presbyters presided over a smaller
part of the church at its special meetings, still it must be thereby
established, that notwithstanding these divided meetings, the church
formed a whole, over which this deliberative college of presbyters pre
sided, and therefore, the form of government was still republican. But
if it is probable that the whole church, which could not meet in one
place, divided itself into several companies, still the assumption, that
from the beginning the number of presbyters was equal to the number
of places of assembling, and to these subdivisions of the collective body
of believers, is entirely groundless, and in the highest degree improbable.
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE. 37
formation. If \ve are justified in assuming that the mode
adopted in the assemblies of Gentile Christians — which, in ac
cordance with the enlightened spirit and nature of Chris
tianity, was not confined to one station of life, or to one form
of mental cultivation — was also the original one, we might
from that conclude, that from the first, any one who had the
ability and an inward call to utter his thoughts on Christian
topics in a public assembly, was permitted to speak for the
general improvement and edification.1 But the first church
differed from the churches subsequently formed among the
Gentiles in one important respect, that in the latter there
were no teachers of that degree of illumination, and claiming
that respect to which the apostles had a right, from the posi
tion in which Christ himself had placed them. Meanwhile,
though the apostles principally attended to the advancement
of Christian knowledge, and as teachers possessed a prepon
derating and distinguished influence, it by no means follows,
that they monopolized the right of instructing the church. In
proportion as they were influenced by the spirit of the Gospel,
it must have been their aim to lead believers by their teach
ing to that spiritual maturity, which would enable them to
contribute (by virtue of the divine life communicated to all
by the Holy Spirit) to their mutual awakening, instruction,
and improvement. Viewing the occurrences of the day of
Pentecost as an illustration of the agency of the Divine Spirit
in the new dispensation, we might conclude that, on subse
quent occasions, that spiritual excitement which impelled
believers to testify of the divine life, could not be confined to
the apostles. Accordingly, we find that individuals came for
ward, who had already devoted themselves to the study and
interpretation of the Old Testament, and to meditation on
divine things ; and when, by the illumination of the Holy
Spirit, they had become familiar with the nature of the gospel,
they could with comparative ease develop and apply its truths
in public addresses. They received the gift for which there
1 That in the Jewish Christian churches, public speaking in their as
semblies was not confined to certain authorized persons, is evident from
the fact, that James, in addressing believers of that class who were too
apt to substitute talking for practising, censured them, because so many
without an inward call, prompted by self-conceit, put themselves for
ward in their assemblies as teachers.
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE.
was an adaptation in their minds — the ,
and, in consequence of it, were inferior only to the apostles in
aptitude for giving public instruction. Besides that connected
intellectual development of truth, there were also addresses,
which proceeded not so much from an aptness of the under
standing improved by exercise, and acting with a certain uni
formity of operation, as from an instantaneous, immediate,
inward awakening by the power of the Holy Spirit, in which
a divine afflatus was felt both by the speaker and hearers : to
this class belonged the Trjoocfrijrclai, the ^apifffjia 7rpo<pr}re~iac. To
the prophets also were ascribed the exhortations (7ra,oa/cX>/<r€te),
which struck with the force of instantaneous impression on
the minds of the hearers.1 The &Sdo-jraXoi might also possess
the gift of 7rpo<pr)T£ia, but not all who uttered particular in
stantaneous exhortations as prophets in the church, were
capable of holding the office of h^aaKaXoi.2 We have no pre
cise information concerning the relation of the <yaovcaXoi to
the presbyters in the primitive church, whether in the ap
pointment of presbyters, care was taken that only those who
were furnished with the gift of teaching should be admitted
into the college of presbyters. Yet, in all cases, the oversight
of the propagation of the Christian faith — of the administra
tion of teaching and of devotional exercises in the social
meetings of believers, belonged to that general superintendence
of the church which was entrusted to them, as in the Jewish
synagogues ; although it was not the special and exclusive
office of the elders to give public exhortations, yet whoever
might speak in their assemblies, they exercised an inspection
over them, Acts xiii. 15. In an epistle written towards the
end of the apostolic era to an early church composed of Chris
tians of Jewish descent in Palestine (the Epistle to the Hebrews),
it is presupposed that the rulers of the church had from the
first provided for the delivery of divine truth, and watched
over the spiritual welfare of the church, and therefore had the
care of souls.
1 The Levite Joses, who distinguished himself by his powerful ad
dresses in the church, was reckoned among the prophets, and hence was
called by the apostles nwa? -a, Bagvdfas, and this is translated in the
Acts (iv. 36) uibs TragaK\-f](r€Ci}s = ulbs TrgotyTjTfias.
2 In Acts xix. 6, as a manifestation of the spiritual gifts that followed
conversion, irgocprjTevtiv is put next to yhdaaaais AaAetj..
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE. 30
Kelativc to the spread of Christianity among the Jews, the
most remarkable feature is the gradual transition from Judaism
to Christianity as a new independent creation, Christianity
presenting itself as the crowning-point of Judaism in its con
summation accomplished by the Messiah ; the transfiguration
and spiritualization of Judaism, the new, perfect law given by
the Messiah as the fulfilling of the old ; the new spirit of the
higher life communicated by the Messiah, gradually developing
itself in the old religious forms, to which it gave a real vitality.
Such is that representation of Christianity which is given in
the Sermon on the Mount. First of all, Peter appears before us,
and then after he had passed over the limits of the old national
theocracy to publish the gospel among the heathen, James
presents himself as the representative of this first step in the
development of Christianity in its most perfect form.
The transition from Judaism to Christianity in general
gradually developed itself, beginning with the acknowledg
ment of Jesus as the Messiah promised in the Old Testament ;
and hence many erroneous mixtures of the religious spirit
prevalent among the Jews were formed with Christianity, in
which the Jewish element predominated, and the Christian
principle was depressed and hindered from distinctly unfolding
itself. There were many to whom faith in the Mcssiahship of
Jesus was added to their former religious views, only as an
insulated outward fact, without developing a new principle in
their inward life and disposition — baptized Jews who acknow
ledged Jesus as the Messiah, and expected his speedy return
for the establishment of the Messianic kingdom in a temporal
form, as they were wont to represent it to themselves from
their carnal Jewish standing-point ; they received some new
precepts from Him as so many positive commands, without
rightly understanding their sense and spirit, and were little
distinguished in their lives from the common Jews. That
Jesus faithfully observed the form of the Jewish law, was
assumed by them as a proof that that form would always
retain its value. They clung to the letter, the spirit was always
?« mystery: they could not understand in what sense he declared
that he came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it. They
adhered to not destroying it according to the letter, without
understanding what this meant according to the spirit, since
what was meant by fulfilling it was equally unknown to them.
40 THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE.
Such persons would easily fall away from the faith which had
never been in them a truly living one, when they found
that their carnal expectations were not fulfilled, as is implied
in the language of the Epistle to the Hebrews. As the com
mon Jewish spirit manifested itself to be a one-sided attach
ment to externals in religion, a cleaving to the letter and
outward forms, without any development and appropriation
of the spirit, a preference for the shell without the kernel : so
it appeared in the Jews as an opponent to the reception of the
gospel, and to the renovation of the heart by it, as an over
valuation of the outward observance of the law, whether in
ceremonies or in a certain outward propriety, and an undue
estimation of a merely historical faith, something external to
the soul, consisting only in outward profession, either of faith
in one God as creator and governor, or in Jesus as the Messiah,
as if the essence of religion were placed in either one or the
other, or as if a righteousness before God could be thereby
obtained. The genius of the gospel presented itself in oppo
sition to both kinds of opus operatum and dependence on
works, as we shall see in the sequel. At first it was the ele
ment of Pharisaic Judaism, which mingled itself with, and
disturbed the pure Christian truth ; at a later period Chris
tianity aroused the attention of those mystical or theosophic
tendencies which had developed themselves in opposition to
the Pharisaism cleaving rigidly to the letter, and a carnal
Judaism, partly and more immediately as a reaction from the
inward religious element and spirit of Judaism, partly under
the influence of Oriental and Grecian mental tendencies, by
which the unbending and rugged Judaism was weakened and
modified ; arid from this quarter other erroneous mixtures
with Christianity proceeded, which cramped and depressed
the pure development of the Word and Spirit.
We shall now pass on from the first internal development
of the Christian Church among the Jews to its outward con
dition.
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE. 41
CHAPTER III.
THE OUTWARD CONDITION OP THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH : ITS PERSECUTIONS
AND THEIR CONSEQUENCES.
IT does not appear that the Pharisees, though they had taken
the lead in the condemnation of Christ, were eager, after that
event, to persecute his followers. They looked on the illite
rate Galileans as worthy of no further attention, especially
since they strictly observed the ceremonial law, and at first
abstained from controverting the peculiar tenets of their
party ; they allowed them to remain undisturbed, like some
other sects by whom their own interests were not affected.
Meanwhile, the church was enabled continually to enlarge
itself. An increasing number were attracted and won by the
overpowering energy of spiritual influence which was mani
fested in the primitive church ; the apostles also, by the
miracles they wrought in the confidence and power of faith,
first aroused the attention of carnal men, and then made use of
this impression to bring them to an acknowledgment of the
divine power of Him in whose name such wonders were per
formed, and to hold him forth to them as the deliverer from
evil. Peter, especially, possessed in an extraordinary degree
that gift of faith which enabled him to perform cures, of which
a remarkable example is recorded in the third chapter of
the Acts.
When Peter and John, at one of the usual hours of prayer,
about three in the afternoon, were going into the temple, they
found at one of the gates of the temple (whose precincts, as
afterwards those of Christian churches, were a common resort
of beggars) a man who had been lame from his birth. While
he was looking for alms from them, Peter uttered the memor
able words, which plainly testified the conscious possession of
a divine power that could go far beyond the common powers
of man and of nature ; and which, pronounced with such con
fidence, carried the pledge of their fulfilment : " Silver and
gold have I none ; but such as I have, give I thee ; In the
name of Jesus of Nazareth, rise up and walk." When the
man, who had been universally known as a lame beggar, was
seen standing with joy by the side of his two benefactors, to
42 THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE.
whom he clung with overflowing gratitude, a crowd full of
curiosity and astonishment collected around the apostles as
they were leaving the temple, and were ready to pay them
homage as persons of peculiar sanctity. But Peter said to
them, " Why do you look full of wonder on us, as if we had
done this by our own power and holiness 1 It is not our
work, but the work of the Holy One whom ye rejected and
delivered up to the Gentiles, whose death ye demanded, though
a heathen judge wished to let him go, and felt compelled to
acknowledge his innocence." We here meet with the charge
which ever since the day of Pentecost, Peter had been used to
bring forward, in order to lead the Jews to a consciousness of
their guilt, to repentance, and to faith. " God himself has by
subsequent events justified Him whom ye condemned, and
proved your guilt. That God who was with our fathers, and
revealed his presence by miraculous events, has now revealed
himself by the glorification of Him whom ye condemned. Ye
have put him to death, whom God destined thereto, to bestow-
on us a divine life of everlasting blessedness ; but God raised
him from the dead, and we are the eye-witnesses of his resur
rection. The believing confidence implanted in our hearts
by him, has effected this miracle before your eyes." Peter
would have spoken in a different strain to obstinate unbe
lievers. But here he hoped to meet with minds open to
•conviction. He therefore avoided saying what would only
exasperate and repel their feelings. After he had said what
tended to convince them of their guilt, he adopted a milder
tone, to infuse confidence and to revive the contrite. He
brought forward what might be said in extenuation of those
who had united in the condemnation of Christ, "that in
ignorance they had denied the Messiah," \ and that as far as
they and their rulers had acted in ignorance, it was in con
sequence of a higher necessity. It was the eternal counsel of
God, that the Messiah should suffer for the salvation of men, as l
had been predicted by the prophets. But now is the time for
you to prove, that you have erred only through ignorance, if
1 Peter by no means acquits them of all criminality, as the con
nexion of his words with, what he had before said plainly shows ; for
he had brought forward the example of Pilate to point out how great
was the criminality of those who, even in their blindness, condemned
Jesns ; but ignorance may be more or less culpable, according to the
•difference of the persons.
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE. 43
YOU now allow yourselves to be brought to a sense of your
unrighteousness by the fact of which you are witnesses ; if
you now repent and believe in Jesus as the Messiah, and seek
through him that forgiveness of your sins which he is ready
to bestow. Thus only you can expect deliverance from all
evil, and full salvation ; for he is now hidden from your bodily
eyes, and, exalted to heaven, reveals himself as invisibly effi
cient by miracles, such as those you have witnessed; but
when the time arrives for the completion of all things, that
great period to which all the prophecies of the Old Testament
point from the beginning, then will he appear again on earth
to effect that completion ; for Moses1 and the prophets have
spoken beforehand of what is to be performed by the Messiah,
as the consummation of all things. And you are the persons
to whom these promises of the prophets will be fulfilled ; to
you belong the promises which God gave to your fathers, the
promise given to Abraham, that through his posterity all the
families of the earth should be blessed.2 As one day a blessing
from this promised seed of Abraham shall extend to all the
nations of the earth,3 so shall it first be fulfilled to you, if you
turn from your sins to him.
The commotion produced among the people who gathered
round the apostles in the precincts of the temple, at last
aroused the attention and suspicion of the priests, whose
office it was to perform the service in the temple, and to
preserve order there. The two apostles, with the cured
cripple who kept close to them, were apprehended, and as it
1 Peter here appeals to the passage in Deuteronomy xviii. 15, 18,
where certainly, according to the connexion, only the prophets in
general, by whom God continually enlightened and guided his people,
are contrasted with the false soothsayers and magicians of idolatrous
nations. But yet, as the Messiah was the last of these promised
prophets, to be followed by no other, in whom the whole prophetic
system found its centre and consummation, so far this passage in its
spirit may justly be applied to the Messiah ; though we cannot affirm
that Peter himself was distinctly aware of the difference between the
right interpretation of the letter, according to grammatical and logical
rules, and its application in spirit, not arbitrary indeed, but grounded
on an historical necessity.
2 This promise, Gen. xii. 3 ; xviii. 18 ; xxii. 18, according to its highest
relation, which must be found in the organic development of the king
dom of God, is fulfilled by the Messiah.
3 On the sense in which, at that time, Peter understood this, see
above.
44 THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE.
was now evening, too late for any judicial proceedings were
put in confinement till the next day. ' When brought before
the Sanhedrim, Peter, full of holy inspiration, arid raised by
it above the fear of man, testified to the rulers of the Jewish
nation that only by the might of Him whom they had cruci
fied, but whom God had raised from the dead, it had come to
pass, that they beheld this man standing in perfect soundness
before them. He was the stone despised by the builders,
1 Gfrorer imagines that he can show that this narrative was only a
legendary echo of the accounts in the Gospels, a transference of the
miracles of Christ to the apostles, and often applies this mode of inter
pretation to the first part of the Acts. Thus he maintains, that the
words in Acts iv. 7, " By what power and by what name have ye done
this I" are copied from the question addressed to Christ, Luke xx. 2 :
" Tell us by what authority thou doest these things ]" and that this is
proved to be a false transference, because the question stands in its
right place in the Gospel history, but not in the narrative of the Acts ;
" for, according to the Jewish notions, every one might cure diseases."
But though the cure of a disease need not occasion any further in
quiries, yet a cure, which appeared to be accomplished by supernatural
power, might properly call forth the inquiry, "Whence did he who per
formed it profess to receive the power1? As it was understood by Peter,
the question involved an accusation that he professed to have received
power for performing such things, through his connexion with an indi
vidual who had been condemned by the Sanhedrim. This question was
intended to call forth a confession of guilt. Equally groundless is
Gfrorer' s supposition, that the quotation in Acts iv. 11, ''This is the
stone which was set at nought of you builders," refers to Matt. xxi. 42,
and can only be understood by such a reference. The connexion of the
passage is sufficiently explicit, and is as follows : " If ye call us to
account for the testimony we bear to Jesus as the Messiah, ye will
verify what was predicted in that passage of the Psalms. The Jesus of
Nazareth condemned by the heads of the Jewish polity, is honoured by
God to be made the foundation on which the whole kingdom of God
rests. He has received from. God the power by which we effect such
miracles."
Gfrorer further remarks, that the plainest proof that this narrative is
defective in historical truth lies in vei-se 16, "What shall we do to these
men ] for that indeed a notable miracle hath been done by them is
manifest to all them that dwell in Jerusalem, and we cannot deny it ;"
he asserts that these persons could not have so expressed themselves.
But if the author of this account has put in the mouth of the Sanhe
drim what he believed might be presumed to be the thoughts that
influenced their conduct, can it on that account be reasonably inferred,
that the narrative is in the main unhistorical 1 On the same plan by
which Gfrorer thinks he can show that such narratives in the Acts are
only imitations of those in the Gospels, we might easily nullify much
in later history, as merely legendary copies of earlier history.
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE. 45
those who wished to be the leaders of God's people, who
would become the foundation on which the whole building of
God's kingdom would rest. Psalm cxviii. 22. There was no
other means of obtaining salvation, but faith in him alone.
The members of the Sanhedrim were astonished to hear men,
who had not been educated in the Jewish schools, and whom
they despised as illiterate, speak with such confidence and
power, and they knew not what to make of the undeniable
fact, the cure of the lame man ; but their prejudices and
spiritual pride would not allow them to investigate more
closely the cause of the fact which had taken place before
their eyes. They only wished to suppress the excitement
which the event had occasioned, for they could not charge any
false doctrine on the apostles, who taught a strict observance
of the law. Perhaps also the secret though not altogether
decided friends, whom the cause of Christ had from the first
among the members of the Sanhedrim, exerted an influence
in favour of the accused. The schism likewise between the
Pharisaic and the Sadducean parties in the Sanhedrim, might
have a favourable influence on the conduct of that assembly
towards the Christians. The Sadducees, who were exasperated
with the a-postles for so zealously advocating the doctrine of
the resurrection, and who were the chief authors of the machi
nations against them at this time, were yet so far obliged to
yield to the prevalent popular belief, as not to venture to
allege that against the disciples which most excited their
enmity. Hence, without making any specific charge against
the apostles, they satisfied themselves with imposing silence
upon them by a peremptory mandate ; which, according to
the existing ecclesiastical constitution of the Jews, the Sanhe
drim was competent to issue, being the highest tribunal in
matters of faith, without whose sanction no one could be
acknowledged as having a divine commission. The apostles
protested that they could not comply with a human injunc
tion, if it was at variance with the laws of God, and that
they could not be silent respecting what they had seen and
heard ; the Sanhedrim, however, repeated the prohibition,
and added threats of punishment in case of disobedience.
Meanwhile this miracle, so publicly wrought — the force of
Peter's address — and the vain attempt to silence him by
threats, had the effect of increasing the number of Christian
46 THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE.
professors to about two thousand. As the apostles, without
giving themselves any concern about the injunction of the
Sanhedrim, laboured according to the intention they had
publicly avowed, both by word and deed, for the spread of the
gospel, it is not surprising that they were soon brought again
before the Sanhedrim as contumacious. When the president
reproached them for their disobedience, Peter renewed his
former protestation. « We must obey God rather than man.
And the God of our fathers," he proceeded to say, " is he who
has called us to testify of what ye have forbidden us to speak.
By his omnipotence, he has raised that Jesus whom ye cruci
fied, and has exalted him to be the leader and redeemer of his
people, and through him all may be called to repentance, and
receive from him the forgiveness of their sins. This we testifv,
and this the Holy Spirit testifies in the hearts of those who
believe on him." * These words of Peter at once aroused the
wrath of the Sudducees and Fanatics, and many of them were
clamorous for putting the apostles to death ; but amidst the
throng of infuriated zealots, one voice of temperate wisdom
might be heard. Gamaliel, one of the seven most distinguished
teachers of the Law (the Rabbanim), thus addressed the
members of the Sanhedrim : " Consider well what ye do to
these men. Many founders of sects and party-leaders have
appeared in our day ; they have at first acquired great noto
riety, but in a short time they and their cause have come to
nothing." He proved his assertion by several examples of
1 These words (Acts v. 32) are by many understood, as if by the term
TreiOagxovvTes the apostles were intended, and as if the sense of the pas
sage were this : We testify of these things, as the eye-witnesses chosen by
Him ; and the Holy Spirit, in whose power we have performed this cure,
testifies by the works which we accomplish in his name. Such an inter
pretation is certainly possible. But it is more natural, as we apply the
first clause to the apostles, to apply the second to those who received
their message in faith, and to whom the truth of this message was veri
fied, independently of their human testimony, by the divine witness of
the Holy Spirit in their hearts ; to whom the Holy Spirit himself gave
a pledge, that, by faith in Jesus, they had received forgiveness of sins
and a divine life. This interpretation is also to be preferred, because
Peter, after the day of Pentecost, was always wont to appeal to that ob
jective testimony which the Holy Spirit produced in all believers. If
the first interpretation were correct, the emphasis would lie on ^ue?* —
we, and the Holy Spirit by us ; indeed, the last clause should have been
THMV TO'IS
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE. 47
commotions arid insurrections which happened about that
period among the Jews.1 They might safely leave this affair
also to itself. If of human origin, it would speedily come to-
an end ; but if it should be something divine, vain would be
the attempt to put it down by human power, and let them
see to it, that they were not guilty of rebellion against God.
Too much has been attributed to these words of Gamaliel,
when it has been inferred from them, that he was a secret
adherent of the gospel;2 the connexion he kept up with the
Jewish schools of theology precludes such a supposition. By
the traditions of the Gemara we are justified in considering
him as one of the freethinking Jewish theologians, which we
also learn from his being in favour of the cultivation of
Grecian literature ;3 and from his peculiar mental constitution
we might likewise infer, that he could be more easily moved
by an impression of the divine, even in appearances which did
not bear the stamp of his party. But many of his expressions
which are preserved in the Mishna, mark him plainly enough
to have been a strict Pharisee, such as he is described by his
pupil Paul ; the great respect, too, in which he has ever been
held by the Jews is a sufficient proof that they never doubted
the soundness of his creed, that he could not be accused of any
suspicious connexion with the heretical sect. On the one
hand, he had a clear perception of the fact, that all fanatical
movements are generally rendered more violent by opposition,
1 The mention of Theudas in Gamaliel's speech, occasions, as is well
known, a great difficulty, since his insurrection seems as if it could be
no other than that mentioned by Josephus, Antiq. xx. 5, 1 ; but to admit
this would involve an anachronism. It is very possible that, at different
times, two persons named Theudas raised a sedition among the Jews, as
the name was by no means uncommon. Origen (against Cclsus, i. 57)
mentions a Theudas before the birth of Christ7 but his testimony is not
of great weight, for perhaps he fixed the time by the account in the Acts.
It is also possible that Luke, in the relation of the event which he had
before him, found the example of Theudas adduced as something analo
gous, or that one name has happened to be substituted for another. In
either case it is of little importance.
2 In the Clementines, i. 65, on the principle of fra.ua pia, it is sup
posed that, by the advice of the apostles, he remained a member of the
Sanhedrim, and concealed his real faith in order to act for the advantage
of the Christians, and to give them secret informations of all the designs
formed against them.
3 See Jost's History of the Israelites, vol. iii. p. 170.
48 THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE.
and that what in itself is insignificant, is often raised into im
portance by forcible attempts to suppress it. On the other
hand, the manner in which the apostles spoke and acted made
some impression on a man not wholly prejudiced ; while their
exact observance of the law, and hostile attitude towards
Sadduceeism, must have disposed him more strongly in their
favour, and hence the thought might arise in his mind, that
after all there was something divine in the cause they
advocated. His counsel prevailed ; no heavier punishment
than scourging was inflicted on the apostles for their dis
obedience, and they were dismissed after the former prohibi
tion had been repeated.
Up to this time, the members of the new sect, being strict
observers of the law, and agreeing with the Pharisees in their
opposition to the Sadducees, appeared in a favourable light
to at least the moderate of the former. l But this amicable
relation was at an end as soon as they came, or threatened to
come, into open conflict with the principles of Pharisaism
itself ; when the spirit of the new doctrine was more distinctly
felt in that quarter, an effect produced by an individual
memorable on this account in the early annals of Christianity,
the proto-martyr Stephen.
The deacons, as we have already remarked, were primarily
appointed for a secular object, but in the discharge of their
special duty frequently came in contact with home and foreign
Jews; and since men had been chosen for this office who
were full of Christian zeal, full of Christian faith, and full of
Christian wisdom and prudence, they possessed both the
inward call, and the ability to make use of these numerous
opportunities for the spread of the gospel among the Jews.
In these attempts, Stephen particularly distinguished himself.
As a man of Hellenistic descent and education, he was better
fitted than a native of Palestine for entering into the views of
those foreign Jews who had synagogues for their exclusive use
at Jerusalem, and thus leading them to receive the gospel.
The Holy Spirit, who hitherto had employed as instruments
for the spread of the gospel only Palestinian Jews, now fitted
for his service an individual of very different mental training,
1 Sec Schneckenburger's Essay in his Beitragen zur Einleitung iris
Ncue Testament, p. 87.
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IX PALESTINE. 49
the Hellenistic Stephen ; and the result of this choice was
very important. Although the Holy Spirit alone, according
to the Saviour's promise, could lead the apostles to a clear
perception of the contents of the whole truth l announced by
himself; yet the quicker or slower development of this percep
tion was in many respects dependent on the mental peculiarity,
and the special standing-point of general and religious culture,
of the individuals who were thus to be enlightened by the
Holy Spirit. In one individual, the development of Christian
knowledge was prepared for by his previous standing-point ;
and hence, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, a knowledge
(yvujffig) of Christian truth rapidly developed itself from
faith (iriffTio) ; whereas, for another to attain the same insight,
the bounds which confined his previous standing-point must
be first broken down by the power of the Holy Spirit operating
in a more immediate manner, by a new additional revelation
(aVoraXvi^tc.) When Christ spoke to his apostles of certain
things which they could not yet comprehend, but which must
be first revealed to them by the Holy Spirit, he, no doubt,
referred to the essence of religion, to that worshipping of God
in spirit and in truth, which is not necessarily confined to
place or time, or to any kind whatever of outward obser
vances ; and with which the abolition of the Mosaic cere
monial law (that wall of separation between the chosen people
of God and other nations, Eph. ii. 14), and the union of
all nations in one spiritual worship and one faith — were closely
connected. The apostles had by this time understood, through
the illumination of the Holy Spirit, the nature of the spiritual
worship founded on faith, but the consequences flowing from
it in relation to outward Judaism they had not yet clearly
apprehended. In this respect, their standing-point resembled
Luther's — after he had attained a living faith in justification,
in reference to outward Catholicism, ere he had, by the further
maturing of his Christian knowledge, abjured that also — and
that of many who before and since the Reformation have
attained to vital Christianity, though still to a degree en
thralled in the fetters of Catholicism. Thus the apostles first
1 Christ did not promise the apostles indefinitely that the Holy
Spirit should guide them into all things, but into the whole of the
truth, which he caine to announce for the salvation of mankind ;
John xvi. 13.
50 THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE.
attained to a full development of their Christian knowledge,
to a clear perception of the truth on this side, when by the
power of the Holy Spirit they were freed from the fetters of
their strictly Jewish training, which obscured this perception.
Oil the other hand, the Hellenistic Stephen needed not to
attain this mental freedom by a new immediate operation of
the Holy Spirit, for he was already, by his early development
in Hellenistic culture, more free from these fetters, he was not
so much entangled in Jewish nationality, and hence his Chris
tian knowledge could on this side more easily and quickly
attain to clearness of perception. In short, Stephen was the
forerunner of the great Paul, in his perception of Christian
truth and the testimony he bore to it, as well as in his conflict
for it with the carnal Jews, who obstinately adhered to their
ancient standing-point. It is highly probable, that he was
first induced by his disputations with the Hellenists, to
present the gospel 011 the side of its opposition to the Mosaic
law ; to combat the belief in the necessity of that law for the
justification and sanctification of men, and, what was con
nected therewith, its perpetual obligation, and then to show
that the new spirit of the gospel freed it altogether from the
outward forms of Judaism ; that the new spirit of religion
required an entirely new form. As, agreeably to the prophecy
of Christ, the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem, with
which the Jews had hitherto considered the worship of God as
necessarily and essentially connected, was now about to take
place by means of the divine judgments 011 the degenerate
earthly kingdom of God, through the victorious divine power
of the Messiah, exalted to the right hand of his heavenly
Father — so would the whole outward system of Judaism fall
with this its only earthly sanctuary, and the theocracy arise
glorified and spiritualized from its earthly trammels. We
cannot determine with confidence, to what extent Stephen, in
his disputations with the Jews, developed all this, but we may
infer with certainty from the consequences, that it would
be more or less explicitly stated by this enlightened man.
Hence it came to pass, that the rage of the Pharisees was now
excited, as it had never yet been against the promulgators of
the new doctrine ; hence an accusation such as had never yet
been brought against them — that Stephen had uttered blas
phemous words against Jehovah and against Moses. We are
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE. 51
told, indeed, that false witnesses deposed against him that he
ceased not to speak against the Holy City (the Temple) and
the Law — that he had declared that Jesus of Nazareth would
destroy the Temple, and abrogate the usages handed down
from Moses. But although these accusations are represented
us the depositions of false witnesses, it does not follow, that
all that they said was a fabrication, but only that they had,
on many points, distorted the assertions of Stephen, with an
evil intention. They accused him of attacking the divine
origin and holiness of the law, and of blaspheming Moses ; all
which was very far from his design. Yet he must, by what
he said, have given them some ground for their misrepresen
tations, for before this time, nothing similar had been brought
against the publishers of the gospel ; hence we may make use
of their allegations to find out what Stephen really said.
And his defence plainly indicates that he by no means
intended to repel the accusation as altogether a falsity, but
rather to acknowledge that there was truth mixed up with it ;
that what he had really spoken, and what was already so
obnoxious to the Jews, he had no wish to deny, but only
to develop and establish it in its right connexion. And thus
we gain the true point of view for understanding this
memorable and often misunderstood speech.
Stephen was seized by his embittered enemies, brought
before the Sanhedrim, and accused of blasphemy. But though
the minds of his judges were so deeply prejudiced by the
reports spread against him, and they waited with intense
eagerness to see the man who had uttered such unheard-of
things — when he actually came before them, and began to
speak, they were struck with the commanding expression
of his whole figure, with the inspired confidence — the
heavenly repose and serenity which beamed in all his features.
In the Acts we are told, that he stood before them with a
glorified countenance, " as it were the face of an angel ;" and
it is very probable, that many members of the Sanhedrim had
thus described the impression which his appearance made
upon them. The topics and arrangement of his discourse
were suited to confirm this impression, and to turn it to
good account, to fix the attention of his judges, and to put
their minds in a more favourable position towards the
.speaker, thus gradually preparing them for that which he
52 THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE.
wished to make the main subject of his discourse. That dis
course perfectly corresponds with the leading qualities ascribed
to his character in the Acts. In his frank manner of ex
pressing what he had learnt by the light of the Divine Spirit,
we recognise the man full of the power of faith, without the
fear of man, or deference to human opinion ; in his manner of
constantly keeping one end in view, and yet, instead of
abruptly urging it, gradually preparing his hearers for it, wo
recognise the man full of Christian prudence.
The object of Stephen's discourse was not simple but com
plex ; yet it was so constructed, that the different topics were
linked together in the closest manner. Its primary object
was certainly apologetical, but as he forgot himself in the
subject with which he was inspired, his apologetic efforts
relate to the truths maintained by him, and impugned by his
adversaries, rather than to himself ; hence, not satisfied with
defending, he developed and enforced the truths he had pro
claimed ; and at the same time, condemned the carnal
ungodly temper of the Jews, which was little disposed to
receive the truth. Thus with the apologetic element, the
didactic and polemic were combined. Stephen first refutes
the charges made against him of enmity against the people of
God, of contempt of their sacred institutions, and of blas
pheming Moses. He traces the procedure of the divine pro
vidence, in guiding the people of God from the times of their
progenitors ; he notices the promises and their progressive ful
filment, to the end of all the promises, the end of the whole
development of the theocracy — the advent of the Messiah, and
the work to be accomplished by him. But with this narrative,
he blends his charges against the Jewish nation. He shows
that their ingratitude and unbelief, proceeding from a carnal
mind, became more flagrant in proportion as the promises were
fulfilled, or given with greater fulness ; and their conduct in
the various preceding periods of the development of God's
kingdom, was a specimen of the disposition they now evinced
towards the publication of the gospel.1 The first promise
1 In this species of polemical discussion, Stephen was a forerunner of
Paul. De Wette justly notices, as a peculiarity of the Hebrew nation,
that conscience was more alive among them than any other people : often,
indeed, an evil conscience, the feeling of guilt, the feeling of the high
office assigned to it which it cannot and will not relinquish, the feeling of
a schism between knowledge (the law) and the will, so that sin accuniu-
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE. J3
which God made to the patriarchs, was that respecting the
land which he would give to their posterity for a possession,
where they were to worship him. In faith, the patriarchs
went forth under the constant guidance of God himself, which,
however, did not bring them to the fulfilment of the promise.
This promise was brought to the eve of its accomplishment by
Moses. His divine call, the miracles God wrought for him
and by him, are especially brought forward, and likewise the
conduct of the Jews while under his guidance, as unbelieving,
ungrateful and rebellious towards this highly accredited
servant of God, through whom they had received such great
benefits : and yet Moses was not the end of the divine revela
tion. His calling was to point to that prophet whom God
would raise up after him, whom they were to obey like him
self. The conduct of the Jews towards Moses is therefore a
type of their conduct towards that last great prophet whom he
announced and prefigured. The Jews gave themselves up to
idolatry, when God first established among them by Moses a
symbolical sanctuary for his worship. This sanctuary was iii
the strictest sense of divine origin. Moses superintended its
erection, according to the pattern shown to him by God, in a
symbolic higher manifestation. l The sanctuary was a move-
able one, till at last Solomon was permitted to erect an abiding
edifice for divine worship on a similar plan. With this his
torical survey, Stephen concludes his argument against the
superstitious reverence for the temple felt by the carnally-
minded Jews, their narrow-hearted sensuous tendency to con
fine the essence of religion to the temple-worship. Having
expressed this in the words of the prophet Isaiah, it was a
natural transition to speak of the essential nature of true
spiritual worship, and of the prophets who in opposition to the
stiff-necked, carnal dispositions of the Jews had testified con
cerning it, and the Messiah by whom it was to be established
latcs and comes distinctly into view; Rom. v. 20. See " Studien und
Kritikeriy" 1837, p. 1003. On this account, the history of the Hebrew-
nation is the type of the history of mankind, and of men in general.
1 Stephen probably wished to intimate that, in order to guard against
idolatry, to which the Jews were so prone, it was necessary to confine
the worship of God to a fixed visible sanctuary, and, on the other hand,
which is an idea that pervades the Epistle to the Hebrews, that this
sanctuary could not communicate the divine, but could only represent it
in a figure.
54 THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE.
among the whole human race. A vast prospect now opened
before him ; but he could not complete the delineation of the
august vision of the divine dispensations which was present to
his imagination ; while gazing at it, the emotions it excited
earned him away ; his holy indignation gushed forth in a
torrent of rebuke against the ungodly, unbelieving, hypocritical
disposition of the Jews, whose conduct in reference to the
divine communications had been the same from the time of
Moses up to that very moment. " Ye stiff-necked, although
boasting of your circumcision, yet who have never received
the true circumcision. Ye uncircumcised in heart and ear (who
want the disposition to feel and to understand what is divine),
ye always withstand the workings of the Holy Ghost. Ye do
as your fathers did. As your lathers murdered the prophets
who predicted the appearance of the Holy One, so have ye
yourselves given Him up to the Gentiles, and thus are become
his murderers. Ye who boast of a law given by God through
the ministry of angels, l (as organs of making known the divine
will,) and yet are so little observant of this law ! "
Till this rebuke was uttered, Stephen had been quietly
heard. But as soon as they perceived the drift of his dis
course, their blind zeal and spiritual pride were roused. He
observed the symptoms of their rage, but instead of being terri
fied thereby, he looked up to heaven, full of believing confidence
in the power of Him of whom he testified, and saw with a
prophetic glance, in opposition to the machinations of men
against the cause of God, the glorified Messiah, denied by
these men, but exalted to heaven, armed with divine power,
and about to conquer all who dared to oppose his kingdom.
This prophetic view was presented to him in the form of a
symbolic vision. As he looked up to heaven it appeared to
open before his eyes. In more than earthly splendour, there
appeared to him a form of divine majesty ; he beheld Christ
(whose glorious image was probably present to him from
actual early recollection) glorified and enthroned at the right
1 This was confessedly a frequent mode among the Jews of marking
the superhuman origin of the law ; so that, according to Josephus, Herod,
in a speech to the Jewish army, inade use of this universally acknow
ledged fact, that the Jews had received their law from God (Si' ayy(\oav
•7ra^;a TOV 3-eoC /XO^^TCOV), in order to show how holy the ambassadors sent
to "them must be, who filled the same office as that of the angels between
God and men; &-)j€\oi= irgfff&eis, ;c%uKes. Joseph. Antiq. xv. 5, 3.
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE. 5-3
hand of God. Already in spirit raised to heaven, he testified
with full confidence of what he beheld. In all periods of the
church, a blind zeal for adherence to the letter and ceremonial
services has been wont to interpret a highly spiritual state,
which will not follow the rules of the reigning theological
school, nor suffer it to be confined by ancient maxims, as mere
fanaticism or blasphemy;1 and so it was on this occasion.
The members of the Sanhedrim stopped their ears, that they
might not be defiled by his supposed blasphemies. They
threw themselves on Stephen, and dragged him out of the
city in order to stone him as a blasphemer. It was sentence
and execution all at once ; an act of violence without regular
judicial examination ; besides, that according to the existing
laws, the Sanhedrim could decide only on disciplinary punish
ment, but was not allowed to execute a capital sentence with
out the concurrence of the Roman governor. With the same
confidence with which Stephen, amidst the rage and fury of
his enemies, saw the Saviour of whom he testified, ruling vic
torious—with the same confidence he directed his eyes towards
him in the prospect of death, and said, « Lord Jesus, receive
my spirit ! " And as he had only Him before his eyes, it was
his Spirit which led him to adopt the Saviour's last words,
thus making him a pattern in death, as he had been in life.
He who, when carried away with holy zeal for the cause of
God, had so emphatically censured the baseness of the Jews,
now that their fury attacked his own person, prayed only for
this, that their sins might be forgiven.
Thus we see in the death of Stephen the new development
of Christian truth apparently stopped ; he died a martyr, not
only for the truth of the gospel in general, but in particular
for this free and wider application of it, which began with
him and seemed to expire with him. Yet from the beginning,
it has been the law of the development of the Christian life,
and will continue to be the same down to the last glorious
result, which will consummate the whole with the final
triumph over death — that out of death a new life comes forth,
and martyrdom for the divine truth, both in its general and
•particular forms, prepares its victory. Such was the issue
here. This first new development of evangelical truth was
1 Thus, at the Council of Constance, it was condemned as a violation
of ecclesiastical subordination, that Huss had dared to appeal to Christ.
56 THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE.
checked in the germ in order to shoot forth with greater
vigour, and to a wider extent, in the person of Paul, and the
martyrdom of Stephen was one step in the process. If tins
new development had been fully exhibited at this time, the
other publishers of the gospel would have been found unpre
pared for it, and not yet capable of receiving it. But in the
meantime, these persons, by a variety of circumstances con
curring in a natural way under the constant guidance of the
Holy Spirit, were prepared for this deeper insight into the
truth.
The martyrdom of Stephen was important in its direct
effects for the spreading of the faith, since it might be ex
pected that, under the immediate impression made by the
sight of such a witness, and of such a death, many minds not
altogether unsusceptible, nor altogether deluded by the power
of error, would be led to the faith ; but yet the indirect con
sequences were still more important, by which the third
violent persecution was raised against the new church at Jeru
salem. This persecution must have been more severe and
extensive than the former; for by the manner in which
Stephen entered into conflict with Pharisaism, he had roused
to hostilities against the teachers of the new doctrine the sect
of the Pharisees, who had the most credit with the common
people, and were powerful and active, and ready to leave no
means untried to attain their object whatever it might be.
The persecution proceeding from this quarter would naturally
mark as its special victims those who were colleagues in office
with Stephen, as deacons, and who resembled him in their
Hellenistic origin and education. It was, however, the occa
sion of spreading the gospel beyond the bounds of Jerusalem
and Judea, and even among the Gentiles. With this progres
sive outward development of the gospel was also connected
its progressive inward development, the consciousness of the
independence and intrinsic capability of Christianity as a doc
trine destined without foreign aid to impart divine life and
salvation to all men, among all nations without distinction.
Here, then, we stand on the boundary-line of a new era, both
of the outward and inward development of Christianity.
BOOK II.
THE FIRST SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY FROM THE CHURCH AT
JERUSALEM TO OTHER PARTS, AND ESPECIALLY AMONG HEATHEN-
NATIONS.
SAMARIA, which had been a scene of Christ's personal
ministry, was the first place out of Judea where the gospel
was preached by his apostles. Though the people of this
country received no part of the Old Testament as sacred ex
cepting the Pentateuch, yet from this portion of the Scriptures
they formed themselves to faith in a Messiah who was to
come ; on him they placed their hopes, as the personage who
was to bring back all things to their right relations, and thus
to be the universal Restorer. Political considerations did not
here, as among the Jews, obstruct the right apprehension of
the idea of the Messiah ; an idea which was specially awakened
among this people by feelings of mental and bodily misery,
though they were deficient in that right understanding of it
which could only be obtained from its progressive development
in the Old Testament ; nor could the deep feeling of the need
of redemption and restoration be clearly developed among
them. A lively but indefinite obscure excitement of the
religious feeling, always exposes men to a variety of dangerous
delusions. This was the case with the Samaritans. As at that
time, in other parts of the East, a similar indefinite longing
after a new communication from Heaven, — an ominous rest
lessness in the minds of men, such as generally precedes great
changes in the history of mankind, was diffused abroad ; so
this indistinct anxiety did not fail to lead astray and to deceive
many, who were not rightly prepared for it, while they adopted
a false method of allaying it. A mixture of unconscious self-
deception and intentional falsehood moved certain Goetao, who,
with mystical ideas, proceeding from an amalgamation of
Jewish, Oriental, and Grecian elements, boasted of a special
58 THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE.
connexion with the invisible world ; and by taking advantage
of the unknown powers of nature, and by various arts of con
juration, excited the astonishment of credulous people, and
obtained credit for their boastful pretensions. Such persons
found at that time an easy access to the Samaritans in their
state of mental excitement. To this class of men belonged a
Jewish or Samaritan Goes, named Simon, who, by his extraor
dinary magical powers, so fascinated the people, that they said
he must be more than man, that he was the great power which
emanated from the invisible God, by which he brought forth
the universe, now appearing on earth in a bodily form. '.
The idea of such an Intelligence emanating from God, as
proceeding from the first act of the divine self-revelation, the
first link in the chain of developed life was spread, abroad in
various oriental- Alexandrian and Alexandrian-oriental forms.
The idea also of the incarnation of higher intelligences gene
rally, and of this intelligence in particular, was by no means
foreign to the notions prevalent in those parts. We can
hardly consider everything of this kind as a mere copy of the
Christian idea of the incarnation, or recognise in it a symptom
of the transforming power which the new Christian spirit
exercised over the intellectual world ; for we find earlier
traces of such ideas.2 But the prevalence of such ideas
proves nothing against the originality of Christianity, or of
any of its particular doctrines. On the one hand, we dare
1 Possibly the words of which this Goes made use, are contained in
the apocryphal writings of the Simonians ; see Jerome's Commentary
on Matt. xxiv. " Ego sum sermo Dei (6 \6yos*), ego sum speciosus,
ego paracletus," — (according to Philo, the Logos Advocate, iragdK\-ijros,
IK€TT]S, through the divine reason revealing itself in the phenomenal
world (the voyr'bv TraoaSe^w rov /cJcrjuou), forms the connexion between
God and the phenomena, what is defective in the latter is supplied. De
Vita Mosis, i. iii. 673; De Migratione Abraham!, 406,) — ego omnipotent,
ego omnia Dei (according to Philo the Logos is the^rjrgoTroAis Tra<rwv r&v
vvvapsuv rov 3-eoD). Still this is uncertain, for the sect of the Simonians
might easily borrow these expressions, as they had borrowed other
things, from Christianity, and attribute them to Simon.
2 In a Jewish apocryphal writing, the irpoa-fux^l 'Io><r??<£, the patriarch
Jacob is represented as an incarnation of the highest spirit living in
the presence of the divine Original Being, whose true divine name was
'10-parjA, av^p bpuv 6e^, the 7rpa>T<fyoi/os iravros £<aov fcov^eVou virb 0ec/D,
(similar expressions to those used by Philo respecting the Logos), who-
was begotten before all angels, 6 lv Trpocruira) 6eov \eirovpybs
See Origen, t. ii. Joh. § 25.
FIRST SPREAD OP CHRISTIANITY. 5fJ
not refuse to acknowledge what could already form itself
from the germs already given in the Old Testament, which
was the preparative covering of the New, or from its spirit
and leading ideas, which were directed to Christ as the end of
all the divine revelations. On the other hand, we must
recollect, that as from the new creation effected by Christi
anity, a powerful excitement was caused both of kindred and
hostile minds, so also a great excitement of these minds pre
ceded the great crisis, unconsciously anticipating and yearning
after it ; a presentiment that there would be such a revelation
of the spiritual world as had not yet been made relating to
the destinies of the human race. And from a teleological
point of view, we recognise Christianity as the final aim of
Divine Wisdom in conducting the course of human develop
ment, when at this period we tind the spiritual atmosphere
pregnant with ideas, which served to prepare a more suscep
tible soil for Christianity and its leading doctrines, and to
form a back-ground for giving relief to the exhibition of the
divine transactions which it announced.
Philip the Deacon, being compelled to leave Jerusalem by
the persecution which ensued on Stephen's death, was induced
to take refuge in Samaria. He came to a city of that
country,1 where Simon. was universally esteemed, and looked
upon with wonder and reverence as a supernatural being.
When he saw the people so devoted to a destructive delusion,
lie felt impelled by his zeal for the cause of God and the
salvation of men, to impart that to them which alone could
give substantial relief to their spiritual necessities. But men
in this situation were not yet susceptible of the spiritual
power of truth ; it was needful to pave a way to their hearts
by preparatory impressions on the senses. As Philip, by the
divine aid, performed things which Simon with all his magical
arts could not effect, especially healing the sick (which he
accomplished by prayer and calling on the name of Christ),
he thus attracted the attention of men to Him in whose name
1 It is not quite clear that the city of Samaria is intended ; for there
is no reason, with some expositors of Acts via. 5, to consider the geni
tive as the sign of apposition. As in the whole chapter, Samaria is the
designation of the country, it is most natural to understand it so in
this passage. In the 14th verse, by Samaria is certainly meant the
country, and yet it does not follow that absolutely the whole land had
received the gospel.
60 FIRST SrRPJAD OF CHRISTIANITY.
and power lie had effected such things for them, and in their
sight ; he then took occasion to discourse more fully of Him,
his works, and the kingdom that he had established among
men, and by degrees the divine power of truth laid hold of
their hearts. When Simon saw his followers deserting him,
and was himself astounded at the works performed by Philip,
lie thought it best to acknowledge a power so superior to his
own. He therefore professed himself a disciple of Philip, and
was baptized by him like the rest ; but as the sequel proves,
we cannot infer from this, that the publication of the gospel
had made an impression on his heart ; it seems most probable
that he secretly interpreted what had occurred according to
Ms own views. The miracles performed by Philip had led
him to the conviction, that he was in league with some super
human spirit ; he looked on baptism as an initiation into the
compact, and hoped that, by forming such a compact, he
might obtain an interest in such higher power, and use it for
his own ends ; he wished, in short, to combine the new magic
or theurgy with his own. As we have already remarked, it
was a standing regulation in primitive times, that all those
who professed to believe the announcement of Jesus as the
Messiah should be baptized. And when Simon renounced
his magical arts, which were now quite out of repute, there
was no ground for rejecting him.
The information that despised Samaria was the first pro
vince out of Judea where the gospel found acceptance, caused
great surprise among the Christians at Jerusalem. As the
ancient prejudice against the Samaritans had not quite worn
away, and 110 account had been received that, among the
baptized believers, those wonderful works were manifested
which, since the day of Pentecost, were considered as neces
sary concomitants of a reception into the Christian commu
nion, the apostles Peter and John were sent thither to
investigate what had transpired, and, by virtue of their
apostolic calling, to complete whatever might be wanting for
the establishment of a Christian community. We find, in
the narrative of the Acts, no reason to impute the want of
these operations of the Divine Spirit among the Samaritans
in any degree to Philip's being only a deacon, as if he could
not found a Christian society, and by preaching the gospel,
and by prayer in the name of Christ, produce effects similar
FIRST SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY. Gl
to those wrought by the apostles. But as in the reverse case,
namely, the conversion of Cornelius, when the effects that
commonly followed baptism then followed the preaching of
the word, and preceded baptism, there was an internal reason
for the order observed ; a longer prepared susceptibility of
disposition promoted the more rapid operations of living-
faith ; so we naturally seek an internal reason for a different
procedure among the Samaritans. The effects to which we
refer proceeded from the power of a living consciousness of-
redemption obtained, and at the commencement of the new
spiritual creation were a mark of vital Christianity. If all
were not influenced in an equal degree, yet all were to a
certain extent moved by the power of the Divine, and suscep
tible enough to be vitally aroused and borne along by the
impression of that Christian inspiration which they saw
before them, for the germ with which these manifestations of
the Spirit connected themselves already existed in their
bosoms. It was, in a spiritual respect, as when a flame once
broken forth detects and kindles all the inflammable mate
rials in its neighbourhood. But among these Samaritans,
the feeling of their religious and moral necessities, which
living faith in the Redeemer presupposes and unites with,
was not yet awakened, in consequence of their being drawn
aside and disturbed by the influence of Simon. At first,
they believed the declarations of Philip as they had believed
in the magical illusions of Simon, since these gross sensible
miracles demanded their belief. Those who had thus attained
to faith, were still entirely dependent on the person of Philip
as a worker of miracles. They had not yet attained the con
sciousness of a vital communion with the Christ whom Philip
preached, nor yet to the consciousness of a personal divine
life. The indwelling of the Spirit was as yet something
foreign to them, known only by the wonderful operations
which they saw taking place around them. We have not a
full account in the Acts of what was done by Peter and John,
but simply the general results. No doubt these apostles
carried on the work of Philip by preaching and prayer.
After such a preparation, the believers were assembled, and
the apostles prayed that Christ might glorify himself in them,
as in all believers, by marks of the communication of divine
life, employing the usual sign of Christian consecration, the
C2 FIRST SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY.
laying on of bands. Manifestations now followed similar to
those on the day of Pentecost, and the believers were thus
recognised and attested to be a Christian church, standing in
an equal rank with the first church at Jerusalem. But
Simon was naturally incapable of understanding the spiritual
connexion of these manifestations ; he saw in all of them
merely the workings of magical forms and charms, a magic
differing not in nature but only in degree from what he
practised himself. Hence he imagined, that the apostles
might communicate these magical powers to him also, by
virtue of which all those on whom he laid hands would
become filled with divine power, and with this view he offered
them money. Peter spurned this proposal with detestation,
and now first saw in its true light the real character of
Simon, who, in joining himself to believers, had pretended to
be what he wras not. Peter's terrible rebuke presents him to
us as a faithful preacher of the gospel, insisting most impres-
.sively on the supreme importance of disposition in everything
which is imparted by Christianity, in direct opposition to the
art of magic, which disregards the necessary connexion of
the divine and supernatural with the disposition of the heart,
drags them down into the circle of the natural, and attempts
to appropriate to itself divine power by means of something else
than that which is allied to it in human nature, and the only
possible point of connexion for it.1 These were Peter's
words : " Thy gold, with which thou attemptcst to traffic in
impiety, perish with thee. Do not deceive thyself, as if with
this disposition thou couldst have any part in what is pro
mised to believers. Thou hast no share in this matter,- for
God, who sees what is within, is not deceived by thy hypo-
1 The poetical fancies of Christian antiquity, which make Peter the
representative of the principle of simple faith in revelation, and Simon
the representative of the magical and theosophic tendency in the human
mind, have important truths for their basis.
2 I cannot agree with those who understand \6yos (Acts viii. 21) in
the sense of the Hebrew ~i3T = pr/pa, and suppose that Peter only
told Simon that he could have no share in that thing, in that higher
power which he hankered after. In this general sense, pr)[j.a is indeed
used in the New Testament, but not the more definite term \6jos.
And according to this interpretation, Peter would say less than the
context requires ; for looking at the connexion of v. 21 with 20 and
22, it is plain, he did not merely say, that Simon with such a disposi
tion was excluded from participating in this higher power, but also
FIRST SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY. G3
critical professions. Before his eyes thy intentions are mani
fest. With sincere repentance for such wickedness, pray to
God that he would be pleased to forgive thee this wicked
design." This rebuke .made a great impression at the time
on Simon's conscience, inclined more to superstition than to
faith, and awakened a feeling not of repentance for the sinful-
ness of his disposition, but of apprehension of the divine
vengeance. He entreated the apostles that they would pray
to the Lord for him, that what they had threatened him witli
might not come to pass.
As is usual with such sudden impressions on the senses, the
effect on Simon was only transient, for all the further notices
we have of him show that he soon returned to his former
courses. About ten or twenty years later, we meet with
a Simon in the company of Felix the lloman Procurator of
Palestine, so strikingly resembling this man, that we are
tempted to consider them as identical. The latter Simon l
appears as a heartless magician,2 to whom all persons, what
ever their character, were welcome, provided they gave credit
from the kingdom of God, and thereby bring condemnation on himseli'.
Hence we understand the word Aoyos in the common New Testament
meaning of the divine doctrine — "the doctrine or truth announced by
us" — at the same time including o-uj/exSox'Kws, all that a person would
be authorized to receive by the appropriation of this doctrine. I am
not convinced by what Meyer in his commentary urges against this
interpretation, that it is at variance with the connexion, in which there
is no mention made of the doctrine. For in the mind of the speaker,
the power of working miracles could not be separated from the publi
cation of the gospel and faith in it; and as Simon in the disposition of
his ruind was tar from the gospel, and could stand in no sort of fellow
ship with it, it followed as a matter of course, that he could have no
share in the ability to work such miracles.
1 On the other hand, there is the difference of country, for the Simon
to whom we refer, and whom Josephus mentions (Antiq. book xx. ch.
vii. § 2), was a Jew from Cyprus; but Simon Magus, according to
Justin Martyr, himself a native of Samaria, was born at a place called
Gittim, in Samaria. Yet this evidence is nob decisive, for a tradition so
long after the time, though prevalent in the country where Simon made
his appearance, might be erroneous. What, lias been said since I wrote
the above, against the identity of the two Simons, is not demonstrative,
though I willingly allow, that since the name of Simon was a very
common one among the Jews, and such itinerant y6r)Tai. were not
seldom to be met with, the time also not perfectly agreeing, the
identity must be left rather doubtful.
2 p.dyov ejVai cr/CTjTrT^aej'oy, says Joscphus.
C4 FIRST SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY.
to his enchantments. With equal arrogance, he disclaimed
all respect for the ancient forms of religion, and for the laws
of morality. He was a confidant of the Roman Procurator
Felix, and therefore could never have opposed his vicious
inclinations, but on the contrary made his magic subservient
to their gratification ; he thus bound him more closely to
himself, as a single example will show. The immoral Felix
had indulged a passion for Drusilla, sister of King Herod
Agrippa, and wife of King Azizus of Emesa. Simon allowed
himself to be the tool of Felix, for gratifying his unlawful
desires. He persuaded Drusilla that by his superhuman
power he could ensure great happiness for her, provided she
married Felix, and managed to overcome her scruples of con
science against marrying a heathen. The character of this
Simon is stamped oil the later theosophic goetic sect of the
Sirnonians, whose tenets were a mixture of the Oriental,
Jewish, Samaritan, and Grecian religious elements. The germ
of their principles may be plainly traced back to this Simon,
though we cannot attribute to him the complete system of
this sect as it existed in the second century.
The two apostles returned again to Jerusalem, and as what
they had witnessed convinced them of the susceptibility of
the Samaritans for receiving the gospel, they availed them
selves of the opportunity of publishing it in all the parts of
the country through which they passed. But Philip extended
his missionary journey further, and became the instrument
of bringing the first seeds of the gospel into Ethiopia, (the
kingdom of Candace at Meroe,) though, as far as our know
ledge of history goes,1 without any important consequences.
But, what is more deserving of notice, he published the
gospel in the cities of Palestine, on the southern and northern
coasts of the Mediterranean, till at last, probably after a con
siderable time, he settled at Csesarca Stratonis, where on his
1 It is still a question whether the introduction of Christianity was
not partially made before the mission of Frumcntius on another side,
and in a different part of Ethiopia; whether many things in the
doctrine and usages of the present Abyssinian church, with which
we have been better acquainted by means of Gobat's Journal, do not
indicate a Jewish-Christian origin. If I am not mistaken, the late
Kcttig has brought forward these questions in the " Studien und Kri-
tiken." Perhaps intercourse with that ancient church will open to
us some sources of information for answering them.
FIRST SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY. C5
arrival ho found a Christian society already formed, which ho
built up in the faith.
Though the Christians of Jewish descent, who were driven
by persecution from Jerusalem, were by that event induced to
spread the gospel in Syria and the neighbouring districts, yet
their labours were confined to Jews. On the other hand, the
Hellenists, such as Philip and others, who originally came
from Cyprus and Cyrene, made their way among the Gentiles l
also, to whom they were allied in language and education,
which was not the case with the Jews. They presented them
with the gospel independent of the Mosaic law, without
attempting to make them Jews before they became Christians.
Thus the principles held by the enlightened Stephen, the
truths for which, in part, he had suffered martyrdom, were by
them first brought into practice and realized. And if in this
way, independently of the exertions of the apostles in Judea,
and the development of Christianity in a Jewish form, churches
had been raised of purely Hellenistic materials among the
heathen, free altogether from Judaism, and if Paul had then
appeared to confirm and extend this mode of operation, one
consequence might have been, that the older apostles would
have maintained with greater stiffness their former standing-
point, in opposition to this freer direction of Christianity, and
thus, by the overweight of human peculiarities in the first
publishers of the gospel, a violent and irreconcileable oppo
sition might have divided the church into two hostile parties.
It could not have happened otherwise if the germinating dif
ferences, left altogether to themselves, as in later times, had
been so developed as to exclude all hopes of a reconciliation ;
and the idea of an universal church, overcoming by its higher
unity all human differences, could never have been realized.
But this disturbing influence, with which the self-seeking and
one-sided bias of human nature threatened from the beginning
to destroy the unity of the divine work, was counteracted by
the still mightier influence of the Holy Spirit, who never
allows human differences to develop themselves to such an
extreme, but is able to maintain unity in manifoldness. We
may distinctly recognise the attractive divine power which
1 In Acts xi. 20, the common reading eXArji/KTras is evidently to be
rejected, as formed from a false gloss, and the reading which refers to
the Gentiles (*\\i]vais) must be substituted as undoubtedly correct.
VOL. I. F
66 FIRST SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY.
gives scope to the free agency of man, but knows exactly
when it is needful, for the success of the divine work, to
impart its immediate illumination, if we observe that at the
precise moment when the apostles needed a wider develop
ment of their Christian knowledge for the exercise of their
calling, and their former contracted views would have been
highly injurious, what had been hitherto wanting was imparted
to them, by a memorable coincidence of an internal revelation
with a train of outward circumstances. The apostle Peter
was the chosen instrument on this occasion.
Peter made a visitation from Jerusalem to the churches
founded in Judea, Samaria, and towards the west near the
Mediterranean. The cures effected by him in Christ's name
in the large town of Lydda,1 and in the city of Joppa (Jaffa),
a few miles distant, drew upon him the universal attention of
that very populous and extensive district on the coast of the
Mediterranean, (the plain of Saron.) Many were converted
by him to Christianity, and the city of Joppa became the
central point of his labours. As the publication of his new
doctrine made such an impression in these parts, information
respecting it would easily spread to Cecsarea Stratonis, a town
on the sea-coast about eight miles distant. In the Roman
cohort which formed the garrison of this place, was a cen
turion, Cornelius 2 by name, a Gentile who, dissatisfied with
1 According to Josephus (Antiq. xx. 6, § 2), a town as large as a city,
in later times a considerable city under the name of Diospolis.
2 We must here take notice of what Gfrorer alleges against the
historical truth of this narrative. He maintains, " that the principle,
that the heathens were to be incorporated with the Christian church by
baptism, without the observance of the Mosaic law, was first expressed
by Paul, and that Peter was brought to acknowledge it by his influence.
The conduct of Peter at Antioch, as it is described in the 2d chapter of
the Epistle to the Galatians, is inexplicable, if he attained his know
ledge on this subject, in an independent manner, by a divine revelation.
If, on the contrary, it was only impressed upon him from without, bv
the preponderating influence of Paul, it is then easy to account for his
again wavering under the opposite influences of the adherents of
James." But whoever understands the relation of the divine and the
human to one another, in the development of the religious life, cannot
be surprised, if in the soul of a man, who in general held a truth with
divine confidence and clearness, the apprehension of it should, in an
unfavourable moment, undergo a transient obscuration, by the influence
of foreign elements, which would afterwards be removed by the return
of divine light. But it is by no means evident, that Peter at that time
FIRST SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY. C7
the old popular religion, and seeking after one that would
tranquillize his mind, was led by acquaintance with Judaism
to the foundation of a living faith in the one God. Having
with his whole family professed the worship of Jehovah, he
testified by his benefactions the sympathy he felt with' his
fellow-worshippers of the Jewish nation, and observed the
hours of prayer customary to the Jews ; so that there is
scarcely any room to doubt that he belonged to the class of
Proselytes of the Gate. Nor can we infer the contrary from
held an erroneous conviction. It was only the violence of a sudden
impression, which, through the peculiarity of his natural temperament,
had too much po\ver over Peter, and made him practically faithless
to those principles which he had by no means abandoned from
deliberate reflection. Paul even reproached him with thus acting in
contradiction to his principles, that he who \vas living as a Gentile
(JfruMtt ftjs), now practically laid an injunction on the Gentile Chris
tians, that they must submit to the Mosaic law. Certainly, a great
change must have passed on Peter, if he had been brought so to act,
that Paul could say to him that he himself had been living as a Gentile!
But if this was not connected with some previous preparation in the
peculiar religious development of Peter, it would be difficult to attribute
it solely to Paul's influence. Paul nowhere asserts that Peter was first
led by him to adopt these views : on the contrary, he speaks of a reve
lation made by the Divine Spirit on this point to the apostles and pro
phets. Eph. iii. 5. If we look at the question in a purely psychological
point of view, we may indeed presume, that Peter could "not have
arrived at a conviction of Christian truth on this point, without a severe
mental straggle ; and in this struggle of the divine and the human in his
soul, that ecstatic vision would find its natural point of connexion, and
occur at a critical juncture, to accomplish the victory of Christian truth
over the reaction of his Jewish mode of thinking. Nor can I with
Gfrorer perceive in Acts xi. y the traces of a more correct account bear
ing evidence against the narrative. That Peter made no scruple of
incorporating Gentiles by baptism with the Christian church, might
unquestionably be inferred, if he shunned not to eat and drink with
them. Still, we might with equal confidence infer, that a Jewish
teacher, who had no scruple to administer baptism to Gentiles, mijrht
not come to the conclusion to consider them of equal rank in the
Christian theocracy, and admit them to every kind of intercourse. But
though Peter afterwards reckoned the publication of the gospel among
the heathen as the special calling of Paul, and the publication of it
among native Jews as his own, it is by no means contradictory, that he,
Wiien a special demand was made upon him, should exercise his ministry
among the Gentiles; just as Paul, although the apostle of the Gentiles,
gladly embraced the opportunity, when he could find an entrance
among the Jews. But in Acts xi. 9 a different spirit speaks from that
of the Petnne party, from whom, according to Gfrorer, this narrative,
and m general the first part of the Acts, was derived.
68 FIRST SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY.
the circumstance that Peter and the stricter Jewish Christians
looked on Cornelius as an unclean person, and in many
respects the same as a heathen. The Proselytes of the Gate
were certainly permitted to attend the synagogue worship,
which was a means of gradually bringing them to a full
reception of Judaism. Yet the Jews who adopted the stricter
maxims of the Pharisees, placed all the uncircumcised in
the class of the unclean, and avoided living and eating with
such persons as defiling. Unless we suppose this to have
been the case, what afterwards occurred in reference to the
stricter pharisaical-minded Jewish Christians, and the Gentile
Christians who had been partly Proselytes of the Gate, would
appear altogether enigmatical.
As to the remarkable manner in which this devout truth-
seeking man (in whose heart God's Spirit had awakened so
lively a sense of his spiritual necessities) was led to mental
peace, in order to have a clear conception of the whole pro
ceeding, we must bear in rniiid that the Acts of the Apostles
is not intended to develop all the circumstances which belong-
to the representation of the exact historical connexion of
events ; and that in reference to the manner in which Corne
lius was prompted to seek out Peter, his own narrative is the
only immediate source of information. But we are not justi
fied to assume that Cornelius, who certainly could best testify
of the facts relating to his own state of mind, of what he had
himself experienced, was equally capable of clearly distinguish
ing the objective, the external matter-of-fact from the subjec
tive of his own mental state, in what presented itself to him
as an object of his own experience and perception. It was
natural also for him not to think of tracing out the con
nexion of the higher revelations made to him, with the pre
parative natural circumstances ; but that the divine in the
affair which wholly occupied his thoughts should remain alone
in his remembrance, and be brought forward in his narrative,
while the preparatives in the natural connexion of causes and
effects retired into the back-ground. We are also permitted
and justified to supply many circumstances, which, though not
expressly mentioned, are yet to be supposed • not in order to
obscuro what was divine in the event, but to glorify the mani
fold wisdom of God as shown in the way men are led to a
participation of redemption, in the connexion of the divine
FIRST SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY. G9
and the natural, and in the harmony that subsists between
nature and grace. Eph. iii. 10.
Cornelius had devoted himself for some days to fasting and
prayer, which were frequently used conjointly by the Jews and
first Christians — the former as the means of making the soul
more capable (by detaching it from sense) for undisturbed con
verse with divine things. This they were wont to do when,
in an emergency from inward or outward distress, they sought
relief and illumination from God. We may, therefore, presume
that something similar was the case with Cornelius ; and na
turally ask, What it was that so troubled him 1 From the
whole narrative we see that his ardent longing was for religious
truth that would bring peace and repose to his heart. Hence
it is most probable, that on that account he sought illumina
tion from God by fervent prayer. And what occasioned his
seeking it precisely at this time? From the words of the
angel to Cornelius, it is bv no means certain that the apostle
Peter was wholly unknown to him. Peter himself, in his dis
course before the family of Cornelius, Acts x. 37, appears to
have presumed that he had already heard of the doctrine of
Christ. It is also probable, that a matter which had already
excited such great attention in this district, and which was so
closely related to his religious wants, had not escaped his notice.
He had probably heard very various opinions respecting
Christianity ; from many zealous Jews judgments altogether
condemnatory ; from others, sentiments which led him to
expect that in the new doctrine he would at last find what he
had been so long seeking : thus a conflict would naturally arise
in his mind which would impel him to seek illumination from
God on a question that so anxiously occupied his thoughts.
It was the fourth day1 since Cornelius had been in this state
1 It will be proper here to give the right interpretation of Acts x. 30.
Many have interpreted the words as equivalent to — " Four days ago I
lasted to this time," — namely, the ninth hour when he was speaking, and
then only one fast-day was kept by Cornelius, in the ninth hour of which
this happened. This agrees perfectly with the reckoning of the time.
But the meaning of airb favours our rendering the passage, " I fasted to
the ninth hour of the fourth day," in which this happened. Kuinoel's
objection to this interpretation is not pertinent ; for, from the manner in.
which Cornelius expressed himself, it must be evident that the vision
happened on the ninth hour of the fourth fast-day. Now, this passage
can be understood to mean, either that Cornelius was wont to fast four
days throughout to three o'clock, or that for four days he fasted entirely
70 FIRST SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY.
of mind, when, about three in the afternoon., one of the
customary Jewish hours of prayer, while he was calling on God
with earnest supplication, he received by a voice from heaven
an answer to his prayers. The appearance of the angel may be
considered as an objective event. The soul belongs in its
essence to a higher than the sensible and temporal order of
things, and none but a contracted and arrogant reason can
deny the possibility of a communication between the higher
world and the soul which is allied to it by its very nature.
The Holy Scriptures teach us, that such communications from
a higher spiritual world to individuals used to occur in the
history of mankind, until the central point of all communica
tions from heaven to earth, the Divine Fountain of life itself,
appeared among us, and thereby established for ever the com
munion between heaven and earth ; John i. 52. We need not
suppose any sensible appearance, for we know not whether a
higher spirit cannot communicate itself to men living in
a world of sense, by an operation on the inward sense, so that
this communication should appear under the form of a
sensuous perception. Meanwhile, Cornelius himself is the
only witness for the objective reality of the angelic appear
ance, and he can only be taken as a credible witness of wliat
he believed that he had perceived. By the influence of the
Divine Spirit, an elevation of mind might be naturally
connected with his devotion, in which the internal com
munication from heaven might be represented to the higher
self-consciousness under the form of a vision, i Although, in
the words of the angel, " Thy prayers and alms are come up
before God," &c., the expression is anthropopathic, and adapted
to the then Jewish mode of expression, this relates only to the
form of the expression. It is the divine in human form. It
is marked throughout by the thought so worthy of God, that
the striving of the devout anxiety of Cornelius, which was
shown to the extent of his ability by prayer and works of love
to the ninth hour of the fourth day, when this happened. But fasts, ac
cording to the Jewish Christian mode of speaking, did not imply an
entire abstinence from all nourishment. I cannot agree with Meyer's in
terpretation, as I understand it, that Peter meant that he had fasted four
days, and on the fourth day, reckoning backwards, that is, the day on
which the fast began, about three o'clock, this event happened.
1 The word '6ga/j.a (Acts x. 3) cannot here be decisive, since it may be
used in speaking of an ecstatic vision or of a vision as an objective fact.
.FI11ST SL'HEAD OF CHRISTIANITY. 71
towards; the worshippers of Jehovah, — of this germ of good
ness, the fostering fatherly love of God had not been unmind
ful,— that God had heard the prayer of his longing after
heavenly truth, and had sent him, in the person of Peter, a
teacher of this truth. From the whole form of this narrative, it
may be inferred that Cornelius considered the pointing out of1
Peter's place of residence, not as something that came to his
knowledge in a natural way, but by a supernatural communi
cation. It is indeed possible that lie had heard it mentioned
by others casually in conversation, but, as he had not thought
further about it, it had completely escaped his recollection,
and now in this elevated state of mind what had been for
gotten was brought back again to his consciousness, without
his thinking of the natural connexion. After all, this is only
possible, and we are by no means justified in considering it
necessary. The possibility therefore remains, that this infor
mation was communicated in a supernatural way.
No sooner had Cornelius obtained this important and joyful
certainty, than he sent two of his slaves, and a soldier that
vv'aited on him, who also was a Proselyte of the Gate, to fetch
the longed-for teacher of divine truth. But this divine leading
would not have attained its end. Peter would not have com
plied with the request of Cornelius, if he had not been pre
pared exactly at the same time, by the inward enlightening of
the Divine Spirit, to acknowledge and rightly interpret this
outward call of God. In the conjunction of remarkable cir
cumstances which it was necessary should meet so critically,
in order to bring about this important result for the historical
development of Christianity, the guiding wisdom of eternal
Love undoubtedly manifests itself.
It was about noon, on the next day, when Peter withdrew
to the roof of the house (built flat, in the oriental style)
where he lodged at Joppa, in order to offer up his mid-day
devotions. We can easily suppose, that the prayer of the
man who had been so zealously occupied in publishing the
gospel in that region, would especially relate to this great
object, the extension of the kingdom of Clirist. He might
have heard frequent reports that here and there heathens had
shown themselves susceptible of the gospel, when proclaimed
to them by the scattered Christian Hellenists; he might have
called to mind many intimations in the discourses of Christ ;
72 FIRST SPREAD OP CHRISTIANITY.
new views respecting the spread of the gospel might have
opened to his mind ; but he ventured not to surrender him
self to these impressions, he was as yet too much fettered by
the power of Jewish prejudices, and hence, probably, a conflict
was raised in his mind. While thus occupied in prayer, the
demands of animal nature pressed upon him. He arose for
the noon-tide meal, which must have been just ready. In the
mean time, the meditations which had occupied him in
prayer, abstracted him from sensible objects. Two tendencies
of his na,ture came into collision. The higher, the power of
the divine, had the mastery over his spirit, and the power of
sensuous wants over his lower nature. Thus, it came to pass,
that the divine and the natural were mingled together, l not
so as to obscure the divine ; but the divine availed itself of
the reflection, of the natural as an image, a symbolic vehicle
for the truth about to be revealed to Peter. The divine light
that was breaking through the atmosphere of traditionary
representations, and making its way to his spirit, revealed
itself in the mirror of sensible images which proceeded from
the existing state of his bodily frame. Absorbed in divine
meditations, and forgetting himself in the Divine, Peter saw
heaven open, and from thence a vessel, " as it had been a
great sheet knit at four corners,2 corresponding to the four
quarters of the heavens, was let down to the earth. In this
vessel he saw birds, four-footed beasts, and edible creeping
things of various kinds, and a voice from heaven called upon
1 What Plutarch says of such an appearance of the higher life is re
markable : ws- of STi/oi T&V apa KVKXw KarcKpepOjUeVwi/ aw^.a,T<av OVK eirt-
s, aAAa KVK\(O /J.ev UTT' avdjK-^s fyepo/j.fvwjs, /carw 5e
, yiverai ris e£ a.u.(t>(nv rapaxaJSrjs /ecu irapdfpopos eAt7/xos, ourws 6
Ka\ov{ifvos fvGovfriaa jubs coj/ce fJ-i^is dvai Kiv^ffftov Svo7u, r^v [nlv us TreirovQG
rrjs ^XYJS a/za TIJI/ 8e us irecpuKe KLvov/jLfvrjs. — De Pyth. Orac. c. 21.
2 If the words SeSe^ei/oi' Kal (Acts x. 11) are genuine, yet, on com
paring them with xi. 5, we must, with Meyer, interpret them, not,
'" bound together at the four corners," but, " bound to four corners."
But it is a question, whether these words, which are wanting in the
Cod. Alex. p. f. and in the Vulgate, are not to be considered as a gloss,
and left out, as in Lachman-'s edition, and then the clause will be
equivalent to "letting itself down at four corners from heaven," as the
Vulgate translates it, "quatuor initiis submitti de coelo." At all events,
these four corners are not unimportant. As they corresponded to the
four quarters of the heavens, they convey an intimation that men from
the north and south, the east and the west, would appear as clean before
God, and be called to a participation of the kingdom of God.
FIRST SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY. 73
him to slay one or other of these creatures, and to prepare
them for food. But against this requirement his Jewish
notions revolted, accustomed as he was to distinguish between
clean and unclean meats. He now heard a voice from heaven
which refuted his scruples with these very significant words
" What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common." It
is clear, that in the explanation of these pregnant words
many circumstances conspired. First, in their application to
the objects here sensibly represented. " Thou must not by
human perversity make a distinction of clean and unclean
between creatures, all of which God has declared to be clean,
by letting them down to thee from heaven." This letting
down from heaven is partly a symbol, that all are alike clean
as being the creatures of God, — partly, that by the new reve
lation, the new creation from heaven presents all as pure.
Then the higher application of these words intended by the
Spirit of God, is in reference to the relation of man to God,
intimating that every distinction of clean and unclean would
be taken away from among men ; that all men as the crea
tures of God would be considered as alike clean, and again
become so as at their original creation, by the redemption
that related to all.
After Peter had again expressed his scruples, this voice was
repeated a third time, and he saw the vessel taken up again
to heaven. He now returned from the state of ecstatic vision,
to that of ordinary consciousness. While he was endeavouring
to trace the connexion between the vision and the subject of
his late meditations, the event that now occurred taught him
what the Spirit of God intended by that vision. Voices of
strangers in the court of the house, by whom his own name
was repeated, excited his attention. They were the three
messengers of Cornelius who were inquiring for him. They
had left Caisarea the day before at three o'clock, and arrived
at Joppa that very day about noon. While Peter was
observing the men, who by their appearance were evidently
not Jews, the Spirit of God imparted to him a knowledge of
the connexion between the symbolic vision and the errand of
these persons. A voice within said, God has sent these men
to seek thee out, that thou mayest preach the gospel to the
heathen. Go confidently with them ; without dreading inter
course witli the Gentiles as unclean, for thou hast been taught
74 FIRST SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY.
by a voice from heaven, that thou must not dare to consider
those unclean whom God himself has pronounced clean, and
whom he now sends to thee. On the next day, he departed
with the messengers from Joppa, accompanied by six other
Christians of Jewish, descent, to whom he had told what had
happened, and who awaited the result with eager expectation.
As the distance for one day's journey was too great, they
made two short days' journeys of it. On the day after their
departure, (the fourth after the messengers had been de
spatched by Cornelius,) about three in the afternoon, they
arrived at Csesarea. They found Cornelius assembled with
his family and friends, whom he had informed of the expected
arrival of the teacher sent to him from heaven ; for he
doubted not that he whom the voice of the angel had notified
as the appointed divine teacher, would obey the divine call.
After what had passed, Peter appeared to Cornelius as a
super-earthly being. He fell reverentially before him as he
entered the chamber ; but Peter bade him stand up, and
said, " Stand up, I myself also am a man." He narrated to
the persons assembled, by what means he had been induced
not to regard the common scruples of the Jews respecting
intercourse with heathens, and expressed his desire to hear
from Cornelius what had determined them to call him thither.
Cornelius explained this, and ended with saying, " JSTow there
fore are we all here present before God, to hear all things
that are commanded thee of God." Peter was astonished at
the pure disposition so susceptible of divine truth, which
appeared in the words of Cornelius, and formed so striking a
contrast to the obstinate insusceptibility of many Jews ; and
perceived the hand of God in the way Cornelius had been led,
since he had sought the truths of salvation with upright
desire ; he therefore said, " Now I perceive of a truth that
God is no respecter of persons ; but in every nation, he that
feareth him and worketh righteousness is accepted of him."
As to these memorable words of Peter, the sense cannot be,
that in every nation, every one who only rightly employs his
own moral power, will obtain salvation ; for had Peter meant
this, he would, in what he added, announcing Jesus as him
by whom alone men could obtain forgiveness of sin and salva
tion, have contradicted himself. On that supposition, he
ought rather to have told Cornelius, that he had only to
FIRST SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY. 75
remain in his present disposition, that was enough, and lie
needed no new doctrine of salvation. But, on the other hand,
it is impossible, according to the connexion, to understand by
'•'every one that feareth God and worketh righteousness,"
those who had attained true piety through Christianity, and
to make the words mean no more than this — that Christians
of all nations are acceptable to God : for the words plainly
import that Cornelius, on account of his upright pious striving,
was deemed worthy of having his prayers heard, and being
led to faith in the Redeemer. Nor can these words relate
only to such who already believed in the revelation of God in
the Old Testament, and according to its guidance, honoured
God, and expected the Messiah. But evidently Peter spoke
in opposition to the Jewish nationalism — God judgeth men
not according to their descent or non-descent from the theo
cratic nation, but according to their disposition. All who,
like Cornelius, honour God uprightly according to the measure
of the gift entrusted to them, are acceptable to him, and he
prepares by his grace a way for them, by which they are led
to faith in Him, who alone can bestow salvation. This is
what Peter meant to announce to them. l
It was natural that, since the minds of these persons were
so much more prepared than others for the appropriation of
saving truth, and for living faith by their inward want and
earnest longing, that the word would make a much quicker
and more powerful impression on them. While Peter was
speaking to them, they were impelled to express their feelings
in inspired praises of that God, who in so wonderful a manner
1 Cornelius belonged to that class of persons who are pointed out in,
John iii. 21. We are by no means authorized to maintain that Peter, from
the general position laid down by him, intended to draw the inference,
that God would certainly lead to salvation those among all nations, to
whom the marks belonged which he here specified, even if they did not
during their earthly life obtain a participation in redemption. He ex
pressed that truth, which at the moment manifested itself to him in a
consciousness enlightened by the Holy Spirit, without reflecting on all
the consequences deducible from it. We must ever carefully distinguish
between what enlightened men consciously intend to say, according to
historical conditions, £fnd in relation to interests immediately affected
by existing circumstances, — and what forms the contents of eternal
truth, to be developed with all the consequences involved. To develop
the first is the province of exegesis and historical apprehension ; the
second, that of Christian doctrine and morals.
76 FIRST SPREAD OP CHRISTIANITY.
had led them to salvation. One inspiration seized all, and
with amazement the Jewish Christians present beheld their
prejudices against the Gentiles contradicted by the fact.
What an impression must it have made upon them, when
they heard the Gentile who had been considered by them as
unclean, testify with such inspiration of Jehovah and the.
Messiah ! And now Peter could appeal to this transaction,
in order to nullify all the scruples of the Jews, respecting the
baptism of such uncircumcised persons, and ask, " Who can
forbid water that these should be baptized, who have already
received the baptism of the Spirit like ourselves ?" And when
he returned to Jerusalem, and the manner in which he had held
intercourse with the Gentiles had raised a stumbling-block
among the strict pharisaical believers, he was able to silence
them by a similar appeal. " Forasmuch then," said he, " as
God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed
on the Lord Jesus Christ ; what was I, that I could withstand
God?" Actsxi. 17.
BOOK III.
THE SPREAD OP CHRISTIANITY AND FOUNDING OF THE CHRISTIAN
CHURCH AMONG THE GENTILES BY THE INSTRUMENTALITY OF
THE APOSTLE PAUL.
CHAPTER I.
PREPARATION AM) CALL TO BE THE APOSTLK OF
THE GENTILES.
IN this manner, Christianity, independently of Judaism, began
to be propagated among the Gentiles ; the appointment of
the gospel as a distinct means of forming all nations for the
kingdom of God, was now acknowledged by the apostles ; and
consequently, on their part, no opposition could be made to
employing it for this purpose. While, by the arrangements
of the Divine wisdom, the principal obstacle to the conversion
of the heathen was taken out of the way, and the first impulse
was given to that work ; by the same wisdom, that great
champion of the faith who was to carry it on, and lay the
foundation for the salvation of the heathen through all ages,
was called forth, to take the position assigned him in the
development of the kingdom of God. This was no other than
the apostle Paul ; a man distinguished, not only for the wide
extent of. his apostolic labours, but for his development of
the fundamental truths of the gospel in their living organic
connexion, and their formation into a compact system. The
essence of the gospel in relation to human nature, on one
side especially, the relation namely to its need of redemption,
was set by him in the clearest light ; so that when the sense
of that need has been long repressed or perverted, and a
revival of Christian consciousness has followed a state of
78 SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY.
spiritual death, the newly awakened Christian life, whether in
the church at large, or in individuals, has always drawn its
nourishment from his writings. As he has presented Christi
anity under this aspect especially, and has so impressively
shown the immediate relation of religious knowledge and
experience to the Lord Jesus, in opposition to all dependence
on any human mediation whatever, thus drawing the line of
demarcation most clearly between the Christian and Jewish
standing-point ; — he may be considered as the representative
among the apostles of the Protestant principle. And history,
though it furnishes only a few hints respecting the early life
of Paul before his call to the apostleship, has recorded enough
to make it evident, that by the whole course of his previous
development, he was formed for what he was to become, and
for what he was to effect.
Saul, or Paul (the former the original Hebrew, the latter
the Hellenistic form of his name),1 was a native of the city
of Tarsus in Cilicia. This we learn from his own expressions
1 The latter was his usual appellation, from the time of his being
devoted entirely to the conversion of the heathen ; Acts xiii. 9.
Although the ancient supposition, that he changed his own name for
that of his convert Sergius Paulus, has been recently advocated by
Meyer and Olshausen, I cannot approve of it. I cannot imagine that
the conversion of a proconsul would be thought so much more of by
him than the conversion of any other man (and he was far from being
his first convert), as to induce him to assume his name. It is more
agreeable to the usage of ancient times, for the scholar to be named
after his teacher, (as Cyprian after Ccecilius, Ensebius after Pamphilus,)
rather than for the teacher to be named after the scholar ; for no one
could think of finding a parallel in the instance of Scipio Africanus.
And had this really been the reason Avhy Paul assumed the name, we
might have expected, as it was closely connected with the whole nai*-
rative, that Luke would have expressly assigned it. And Fritzsche is
correct in saying (see his Commentary on the Romans, Proleg. p. 11),
that, in this case, not Acts xiii. 9, but xiii. 13, would have been a
natural place for mentioning it. Still I cannot, with Fritzsche, think it
probable, that Luke was accidentally led, by the mention of Sergius
Paulus, to remark that Paul also bore the same name. ^The most
natural way of viewing the matter seems to be this ; Luke had hitherto
designated him by the name which he found in the memoirs lying before
him on the early history of Christianity. But he was now induced to
distinguish him by the name which he found in the memoirs of his
labours among the heathen, and by which he had personally known him
during that later period ; and, therefore, took the opportunity of re
marking, that this Paul was no other than the individual whom he had
'hitherto called Saul.
BY THE APOSTLE PAUL. 79
in Acts xxi. 39, xxii. 3, and the contradictory tradition
reported by Jerome, that he was born in the small town of
Gischala, in Galilee, cannot appear credible, though it is not
improbable that his parents once resided there,1 which may
have given rise to the report. As we- do not know how long
he remained under the paternal roof, it is impossible to deter
mine what influence his education in the metropolis of Cilicia
(which as a seat of literature vied with Athens and Alex
andria) 2 had on the formation of his character. Certainly,
his early acquaintance with the language and national pecu
liarities of the Greeks was of some advantage in preparing
him to be a teacher of Christianity among nations of Grecian
origin. Yet the few passages from the Greek poets which wo
meet with in his discourse at Athens, and in his Epistles, da
not prove that his education had made him familiar with
Grecian literature : nor is it probable that such would be the
1 If we were justified in understanding: with Paulus (in his work on
the Apostle Paul's Epistles to the Galatians and Romans, p. 323) the
word e^patoj, Phil. iii. 5, 2 Cor. xi. 22, as used in contradistinction to
eAATji/KTTTjs, it would serve to confirm this tradition, since it would
imply that Paul could boast of a descent from a Palestinian-Jewish and
not Hellenistic family. But since Paul calls himself tppaios, though
he was certainly by birth a Hellenist, it is evident that the word cannot
be used in so restricted a sense; and in the second passage quoted
above, where it is equivalent to an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham,
it plainly has a wider meaning ; see Block's admirable Introduction to
the Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 32. This tradition too, reported by
Jerome, is, as Fritzsche justly remarks, very suspicious, not only on
account of the gross anachronism, which makes the taking of Gischala
by the Romans the cause of Paul's removal thence with his parents, —
since this event happened much later in the Jewish Avar, but also
because Jerome, in his Commentary on the Epistle to Philemon
(verse 23), makes use of this tradition to explain why Paul, though a
citizen of Tarsus, calls himself, 2 Cor. xi. 22, Philip, iii. 5, " Hebrceus
ex Hcbrceis, et ccetcra quae ilium Judaeum magis indicant quam Tar-
senscm," which yet, as we have remarked above, proceeds only from a
misunderstanding of the epithet which Paul applies to himself. Jerome
must have, therefore, taken up this false account (" talem fabulam
accepimus/' arc his own words), without proof, in a very thoughtless
manner.
2 Strabo, who wrote in the time of Augustus, places Tarsus in this
respect above these two cities : TOO-OUTTJ TO?S ei/0a5e avOpunrois av
irp6s Tf <pi\(j<TO(f)iav Kal T^V &\\fjv €jKvK\iov airaffav irotSeiW yeyovev,
vTrep/3f0\rii>Tai Kcd 5A0->Vas Kal 'AhctavSpeiav Kal d nva &\\ov
8'jvarbv eiTTf'iv eV
Gcogr i. 14, c. 5.
80 SPIIEAD OF CHRISTIANITY
case. As his parents designed him to be a teacher of the law,
or Jewish theologian, his studies must have been confined in
his early years to the Old Testament, and about the age of twelve
or thirteen, he must have entered the school of Gamaliel.1 It
is possible, though, considering Paul's pharisaic zeal, not pro
bable, that the more liberal views of his tolerant-minded
teacher Gamaliel might induce him to turn his attention to
Grecian literature. A man of his mental energy, whose zeal
overcame all difficulties in his career, and whose love prompted
him to make himself familiar with all the mental habitudes
of the men among whom he laboured, that he might sym
pathise more completely with their wants and infirmities,
might be induced, while among people of Grecian culture, to
acquire some knowledge of their principal writers. But in
the style of his representations, the Jewish element evidently
predominates. His peculiar mode of argumentation was not
formed in the Grecian, but in the Jewish school. The name
Saul, ^Nti,2 the desired one, the one prayed for, perhaps
indicates, that he was the first-born of his parents,3 granted
in answer to their earnest prayers : and hence it may be
inferred, that he was devoted by his father, a Pharisee, to the
service of religion, and sent in early youth to Jerusalem, that
he might be trained to become a learned expounder of the law
and of tradition ; not to add, that it was usual for the youth of
Tarsus4 to complete their education at some foreign school.
Most advantageously for him, he acquired in the pharisaic
schools at Jerusalem that systematic form of intellect, which
afterwards rendered him such good service in developing the
contents of the Christian doctrine ; so that, like Luther, he
became thoroughly conversan-t with the theological system,
which afterwards, by the power of the gospel, he uprooted and
destroyed. A youth so ardent and energetic as Paul, would
throw his whole soul into whatever he undertook ; his natural
temperament would dispose him to an overflowing impetuous
zeal, and for such a propensity Pharisaism supplied abundant
1 See Tholuck's admirable remarks in the Studien und Kritikcn,
1835, 2d part, p. 366.
2 We cannot attach much importance to so uncertain an inference.
3 Like the names Theodorus, Theodoret, common among Christians in
the first century.
4 See Strabo.
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE. 17
understanding with the lower self-consciousness for the time
lay dormant.
After having attempted to clear up these different points,
we shall be better able to give a sketch of the whole scene on
that memorable day.
The shock of the earthquake occasions the concourse of
many persons in the streets from various quarters, as the
festival had brought Jews and proselytes from all parts of the
worl< -to Jerusalem. The assembling of the disciples attracts
their notice ; by degrees a crowd of curious inquirers is col
lected, many of whom probably enter the assembly in order
to inform themselves accurately of the affair. The disciples
now turn to these strangers, and, constrained by the impulse
of the Spirit, announce to them what filled their hearts. The
impression made by their words varies with the dispositions
of their hearers. Some feel themselves affected by the energy
of inspiration with which the disciples spoke, but can give no
clear account of the impressions made by the whole affair.
Instead of asking themselves, " Whence proceeds that power
with which we hear these men speak who were not educated in
the schools of the scribes'?" their wonder is directed only to what
was most external. How comes it to pass that these Galileans
speak in foreign tongues 1 Others, who have been impressed
1. v. c. 8), applying the words in Isaiah xi. 2 to the Christian church,
joins prophetari with linguis loqui, and attributes both to the Spiritus
ognitionis, the -jrvev^a yvwa-fus. It further appears from what has been
said, that the gift of tongues was considered as still existing in the
church ; and it is strange that the Fathers never refer to it apolo
getically, as an undeniable evidence to the heathen of the divine power
operating among Christians, in the same manner as they appeal to tha
gift of healing the sick, or of casting out demons, although the ability
to speak in a variety of languages which could not be acquired in
a natural way, must have been very astonishing to the heathen. In
Origen, in whose times the Charismata of the apostolic church began
to be considered _ as something belonging to the past, we find the first
trace of the opinion that has since been prevalent, yet even in him the
two views are mingled, as might be done by the distinction of the two
fold mode of interpretation, the literal and the spiritual. Compare
Ep. ad Roman, ed. De la Rue, t. iv. f. 470. 1. vii. f. 602, de Oratione,
§ 2, torn. i. f. 199. The opposition to Montanism, which had subjected
the -yXwavais \a\t?v to abuse, as in the Corinthian Church, might con
tribute to sink into oblivion the mote ancient interpretation. The
|n/o(/>a>i/e<V, the \a\e'ii' ^K(pp6v(as nal a.\\oTpioTp6Tra>s came to be considered
as a mark of the spurious Montanist Inspiration, Euseb. Hist. Eccl. v. 16.
VOL. I. C
18 THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE.
without any precise consciousness, give vent to their astonish
ment in general expressions, What can all this mean 1 But
those who were utterly unsusceptible and light-minded, ridi
cule and reject what they are unable to comprehend.
The apostles held it to be their duty to defend the Christian
community against the reproaches cast upon it by superficial
judges, and to avail themselves of the impression which this
spectacle had made on so many, to lead them to faith in Him
whose divine power was here manifested. Peter came forward
with the rest of the eleven, and as the apostles spoke in the
name of the whole church, so Peter spoke in the name of the
apostles. The promptitude and energy which made him take
the lead in expressing the sentiments with which all were
animated, were special endowments, founded on his natural
character ; hence the distinguished place which he had already
taken among the disciples, and which he long after held in the
first church at Jerusalem. "Think not," said Peter,1 "that
in these unwonted appearances you see the effects of inebriety.
These are the signs of the Messianic era, predicted by the
prophet Joel ; the manifestations of an extraordinary effusion
of the Spirit, which is not limited to an individual here and
there, the chosen organs of the Most High, but in which all
share who have entered into a new relation to God by faith
in the Messiah. This Messianic era will be distinguished, as
the prophet foretold, by various extraordinary appearances, as
precursors of the last decisive epoch of the general judgment.
But whoever believes in the Messiah has no cause to fear that
judgment, but may be certain of salvation. That Jesus of
Nazareth, whose divine mission was verified to you by the
miracles that attended his earthly course, is the very Messiah
promised in the Old Testament. Let not his ignominious
death be urged as invalidating his claims. It was necessary
for the fulfilment of his work as the Messiah, and determined
by the counsel of God. The events that followed his death
are a proof of this, for he rose from the dead, of which we are
1 Bleelc has correctly perceived traces of a Hebrew original in Acts
ii. 24, where the connexion of the metaphor makes 5e<r/xovs rov Gavdrov
=rnn ^n or Vi^, Psalm xviii. 5 and 6, which the Alexandrian renders
by wSiVes, according to the meaning of the word ^rr. See Bleek's
review of Mayerhoffs Hist. Kritisdier Einleitung in die hebraischcn
Schriften, in the Studien und Kritiken. 1336, iv. 1021.
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE. 19
all witnesses, and has been exalted to heaven by the divine
power. From the extraordinary appearances which have filled
you with astonishment, you perceive, that in his glorified
state he is now operating with divine energy among those
who believe on him. The heavenly Father has promised that
the Messiah shall fill all who believe on him with the power
of the divine Spirit, and this promise is now being fulfilled.
Learn, then, from these events, in which you behold the
prophecies of the Old Testament fulfilled, the nothingness of
all that you have attempted against him, and know that God
has exalted him whom you crucified to be Messiah, the ruler
of God's kingdom, and that, through divine power, he will
overcome all his enemies."
The words of Peter deeply impressed many, who anxiously
asked, What must we do ? Peter called upon them to repent
of their sins, to believe in Jesus as the Messiah who could
impart to them forgiveness of sins and freedom from sin, — in
this faith to be baptized, and thus outwardly to join the com
munion of the Messiah ; then would the divine power of faith
be manifested in them, as it had already been in the commu
nity of believers ; they would receive the same gifts of the
Holy Spirit, the bestowment of which was simultaneous with
the forgiveness of sins, and freedom from sin ; for the promise
related to all believers without distinction, even to all in
distant parts of the world, whom God by his grace should lead
to believe in Jesus as the Messiah.
A question may be raised, Whether by these last words
Peter intended only the Jews scattered among distant nations,
or whether he included those among the heathen themselves
who might be brought to the faith ? As Peter at a subsequent
period, opposed the propagation of the gospel among the
heathen, there would be an apparent inconsistency in his now
making such a reference. But there is really no such con
tradiction, for the scruple which clung so closely to Peter's
mind was founded only on his belief that heathens could not
be received into the community of believers, without first
becoming Jewish Proselytes, by the exact observance of the
Mosaic law. Now, according to the declarations of the pro
phets, he might expect that in the Messianic times the
heathen would be brought to join in the worship of Jehovah,
so that this sentiment might occur to him consistently with.
20 THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE.
the views he then held, and he might express it without
giving offence to the Jews. Yet this explanation is not
absolutely necessary, for all the three clauses (Acts ii. 39)
might be used only to denote the aggregate of the Jewish
nation in its full extent ; and we might rather expect that
Peter, who had been speaking of the Jews present and their
children, if he had thought of the heathen also, would have
carefully distinguished them from the Jews. On the other
hand, the description, " All that are afar off, even as many as
the Lord our God shall call," appears too comprehensive
to justify us in confining it to persons originally belonging to
the Jewish nation. Hence, it is most probable, that in Peter's
mind, when he used this expression, there floated an indistinct
allusion to believers from other nations, though it did not
appear of sufficient importance for him to give it a greater
prominence in his address, as it was his conviction, that
the converts to Christianity from heathenism must first
become Jews.
CHAPTER II.
THE FIRST FORM OP THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY, AND THE FIRST GERM
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.
THE existence and first development of the Christian .church
rests on an historical foundation — on the acknowledgment ot
the fact that Jesus was the Messiah — not on a certain system
of ideas. Hence, at first, all those who acknowledged Jesus
as the Messiah, separated from the mass of the Jewish people,
and formed themselves into a distinct community. In the
course of time, it became apparent who were genuine, and
who were false disciples ; but all who acknowledged Jesus as
the Messiah wer^e baptized without fuller or longer instruction,
such as in later times has preceded baptism. There was only
one article of faith which formed the peculiar mark of
the Christian profession, and from this point believers were
led to a clearer and perfect knowledge of the whole contents
of the Christian faith, by the continual enlightening of the
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE. 21
Holy Spirit. Believing that Jesus was the Messiah, they
ascribed to him the whole idea of what the Messiah was to be,
according to the meaning and spirit of the Old Testament
promises, rightly understood ; they acknowledged him as
the Redeemer from sin, the Ruler of the kingdom of God, to
whom their whole lives were to be devoted, whose laws were
to be followed in all things ; while he would manifest himself
as the Ruler of God's kingdom, by the communication of a
new divine principle of life, which to those who are redeemed
and governed by him imparts the certainty of the forgiveness
of sins. This divine principle of life must (they believed)
mould their whole lives to a conformity with the laws of the
Messiah and his kingdom, and would be the pledge of all the
blessings to be imparted to them in the kingdom of God until
its consummation. Whoever acknowledged Jesus as the
Messiah, received him consequently as the infallible divine
prophet, and implicitly submitted to his instructions as com
municated by his personal ministry, and afterwards by his
inspired organs, the apostles. Hence baptism at this period,
in its peculiar Christian meaning, referred to this one article
of faith, which constituted the essence of Christianity, as
baptism into Jesus, into the name of Jesus ; it was the holy
rite which sealed the connexion with Jesus as the Messiah.
From this signification of baptism we cannot indeed con
clude with certainty that there was only one form of baptism.
Still, it is probable that in the original apostolic formula
no reference was made except to this one article. This shorter
baptismal formula contains in itself every thing which is
further developed in the words used by Christ at the institu
tion of baptism, but which he did not intend to establish
as an exact formula ; the reference to God, who has revealed
and shown himself in and by the Son, as a Father ; and
to the Spirit of the Father, whom Christ imparts to believers
as the new spirit of life ; the Spirit of holiness, who, by
virtue of this intervention is distinguished as the spirit of
Christ. That one article of faith included, therefore, the
whole of Christian doctrine. But the distinct knowledge of
its contents was by no means developed in the minds of the
first converts, or freed from foreign admixtures resulting from
Jewish modes of thinking, which required that religious ideas
should be stripped of that national and carnal veil with
90.
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE.
which they were covered. As the popular Jewish notion
of the Messiah excluded many things which were charac
teristic of this idea, as formed and understood in a Christian
sense; and as it included many elements not in accordance
with Christian views, one result was, that in the first Chris
tian communities which were formed among the Jews, various
discordant notions of religion wrere mingled ; there were
many errors arising from the prevailing Jewish mode of
thinking, some of which were by degrees corrected, in the
case of those who surrendered themselves to the expansive
and purifying influence of the Christian spirit ; but in those
over whom that spirit could not exert such power, these
errors formed the germ of the later Jewish-Christian (the so-
called Ebionitish) doctrine, which set itself in direct hostility
to the pure gospel.
Thus we are not justified in assuming that the Three
Thousand who were converted on one day, became trans
formed at once into genuine Christians. The Holy Spirit
operated then, as in all succeeding ages, by the publication of
divine truth, not with a sudden transforming magical power,
but according to the measure of the free self-determination of
the human will. Hence, also, in these first Christian societies,
as in all later ones, although originating in so mighty an
operation of the Holy Spirit, the foreign and spurious were
mingled with the genuine. In fact, in proportion to the
might and energy of the operation, many persons were more
easily carried away by the first impressions of divine truth,
whose hearts were not a soil suited for the divine seed to take
deep root and develop itself; and in outward appearance,
there were no infallible marks of distinction between genuine
and merely apparent conversions. The example of Ananias
and Sapphira, and the disputes of the Palestinian and Hel
lenistic Christians, evince even at that early period, that the
agemcy of the Spirit did not preserve the church entirely pure
from foreign admixtures. It happened then, as in the great
religious revivals of other times, that many were borne along
by the force of excited feelings, without having (as their sub
sequent conduct proved) their disposition effectually pene
trated by the Holy Spirit.
The form of the Christian community and of the public
Christian worship, the archetype of all the later Christian
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IX PALESTINE. 23
Cultus. arose at first, without any preconceived plan, from
the peculiar nature of the higher life that belonged to
nil true Christians. There was, however, this difference, that
the first Christian community formed as it were one family ;
the power of the newly awakened feeling of Christian fellow
ship, the feeling of the common grace of redemption, out
weighed all other personal and public feelings, and all other
relations were subordinated to this one great relation. But,
in later times, the distinction between the church and the
family became more marked, and many things which were at
first accomplished in the church as a family community,
could latterly be duly attended to only in the narrower
communion of Christian family life.
The first Christians assembled daily either in the Temple,
or in private houses ; in the latter case they met in small
companies, since their numbers were already too great for one
chamber to hold them all. Discourses on the doctrine of
salvation were addressed to believers and to those who were just
won over to the faith, and prayers were offered up. As the
predominant consciousness of the ei^joyment of redemption
brought under its influence and sanctified the whole of'
earthly life, nothing earthly could remain untransformed by
this relation to a higher state. The daily meal of which
believers partook as members of one family was sanctified by
it.1 They commemorated the last supper of the disciples
with Christ, and their brotherly union with one another. At
the close of the meal, the president distributed bread and wine
to the persons present, as a memorial of Christ's similar dis
tribution to the disciples. Thus every meal was consecrated
to the Lord, and, at the same time, was a meal of brotherly
love. Hence the designations afterwards* chosen were, hliryoy
Kvpiov and aydmj.s
1 The hypothesis lately revived, that such institutions were borrowed
from the Essenes. is so entirely gratuitous as to require no refutation.
2 In Acts ii. 42, we find the tirst general account of what passed in
the assemblies of the first Christians. Mosheim thinks, since every
thing else is mentioned that is found in later meetings of the church,
that the Koivuvla refers to the collections made on these occasions. But
the context does not favour the use of the word noivcavia in so restricted a
signification, which, therefore, if it were the meaning intended, would
require a more definite term. See Meyer's Commentary. We may
most naturally consider it as referring to the whole of the social Chris
tian intercourse, two principal parts of which were, the common meal
24 THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE.
From ancient times an opinion has prevailed, which is ap
parently favoured by many passages in the Acts, that the
spirit of brotherly love impelled the first Christians to
renounce all their earthly possessions, and to establish a
perfect intercommunity of goods. When, in later times, it
was perceived how very much the Christian life had receded
from the model of this fellowship of brotherly love, an earnest
longing to regain it was awakened, to which we must attribute
some attempts to effect what had been realized by the first
glow of love in the apostolic times — such were the orders of
Monkhood, the Mendicant Friars, the Apostolici, and the
Waldenses in the 12th and 13th centuries. At all events,
supposing this opinion to be well founded, this practice of the
apostolic church ought not to be considered as in a literal
sense the ideal for imitation in all succeeding ages ; it must
have been a deviation from the natural course of social
development, such as could agree only with the extraordinary
manifestation of the divine life in the human race at that
particular period. Only the spirit and disposition here
manifested in thus amalgamating the earthly possessions of
numbers into one common fund, are the models for the
church in its development through all ages. For as Chris
tianity never subverts the existing natural course of develop
ment in the human race, but sanctifies it by a new spirit, it
necessarily recognises the division of wealth (based on that
development), and the inequalities arising from it in the
and prayer. Luke mentions prayer last of all, probably because the
connexion between the common meal and prayer, which made an
essential part of the love-feast, was floating in his mind. Olshausen
maintains (see his Commentary, 2d ed. p. 629), that this interpre
tation is inadmissible, because in this enumeration, every thing
relates to divine worship, as may be inferred from the preceding
expression SiSax^j. But this supposition is wanting in proof. Ac
cording to what we have before remarked, the communion of the
church, and of the family, were not at that time separated from one
another; no strict line of demarcation was drawn between what
belonged to the Christian Cultus in a narrower sense, and what related
to the Christian life and communion generally. Nor can the reason
alleged by Olshausen be valid, that if my interpretation were correct,
the word KOIVUV'IO. must have been placed first, for it is altogether in order
that that should be placed first, which alone refers to the directive func
tions of the apostles, that then the mention should follow of the
reciprocal Christian communion of all the members with one another,
and that of this communion two particulars should be especially noticed.
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE. 25
social relations ; while it draws from these inequalities
materials for the formation and exercise of Christian virtue,
and strives to lessen them by the only true and never-failing
means,1 the power, namely, of love. This, we find, agrees
with the practice of the churches subsequently founded by
the apostles, and with the directions given by Paul for the
exercise of Christian liberality, 2 Cor. viii. 13. Still, if we are
disposed to consider this community of goods as only the
effect of a peculiar and temporary manifestation of Christian
zeal, and foreign to the later development of the church, we
shall find many difficulties even' in this mode of viewing it.
The first Christians formed themselves into no monkish fra
ternities, nor lived as hermits secluded from the rest of the
world, but, as history shows us, continued in the same civil
relations as before 'their conversion ; nor have we any proofs
that a community of goods was universal for a time, and was
then followed by a return to the usual arrangements of
society. On the contrary, several circumstances mentioned in
the Acts of the Apostles, are at variance with the notion of
such a relinqiiishment of private property. Peter said ex
pressly to Ananias that it depended on himself to sell or to
keep his land, and that even after the sale, the sum received
for it was entirely at his own disposal, Acts v. 4. In the 6th
chapter of the Acts, there is an account of a distribution of
alms to the widows, but not a word is said of a common stock
1 As the influence which Christianity exercises over mankind is not
always accompanied with a clear discernment of its principles, there
have been many erroneous tendencies, which, though hostile to Chris
tianity, have derived their nourishment from it, — half-truths torn from
their connexion with the whole body of revealed truth, and hence mis
understood and misapplied ; of this, the St. Simonians furnish an
example. They had before them an indistinct conception of the Chris
tian idea of equality; but as it was not understood in the Christian
sense, they have attempted to realize it in a different manner. They
have striven to accomplish by outward arrangements, what Christianity
aims at developing gradually through the mind and disposition, and
have thus fallen into absurdities. Christianity tends by the spirit of love
to reduce the opposition between the individual and the community,
and to produce an harmonious amalgamation of both. St. Simouianism,
on the contrary, practically represents the pantheistic tendency, of which
the theory is so prevalent in Germany in the present day ; it sacrifices
the individual to the community, and thus deprives the latter of its true
vital importance.
26 THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE.
for the support of the whole body of believers. We find in
Acts xii. 12, that Mary possessed a house at Jerusalem, which
we cannot suppose to have been purchased at the general cost.
These facts plainly show, that we are not to imagine, even in
this first Christian society, a renunciation of all private pro
perty.1 Therefore, when we are told, "The whole multitude
of believers were of one heart and of one soul, and had all
things common," &c., it is not to be understood literally, but
as a description of that brotherly love which repressed all
selfish feelings, and caused the wealthier believers to regard
their property as belonging to their needy brethren, so ready
were they to share it with them. And when it is added, " that
they sold their possessions, and distribution was made to eveiy
man according as he had need," it is to be understood accord
ing to what has just been said. A common chest was estab
lished, from which the necessities of the poorer members of the
church were supplied, and perhaps certain expenses incurred
by the whole church, such as the celebration of the Agapse,
were defrayed ; and in order to increase their contributions,
many persons parted with their estates. Probably, a union of
this kind existed among the persons who attended the Saviour,
and ministered to his necessities, Luke viii. 3 ; and a fund for
1 Or we must assume, that as the power of the newly awakened feeling
of Christian fellowship overcame every other consideration, and wholly
repressed the other social relations that are based on the constitution
of human nature, which after a while resumed their rights, and became
appropriated as special forms of Christian fellowship, and that as the
church and family life were melted into one, it would well agree with
the development of a state so natural to the infancy of the church, that
by the overpowering feeling of Christian fellowship, all distinction of
property should cease, which would be accomplished from an inward im
pulse without formal consultation or legal prescription. But after expe
rience had shown how untenable such an arrangement was, this original
community of goods would gradually lead to the formation of a common
fund or chest, which would not interfere with the limits of private pro
perty. But in the Acts these two gradations in the social arrangements
of the church might not be distinctly marked, nor would it be in our
power to trace step by step the process of development. Still, we want
sufficient grounds for this assumption. The poverty of the church at
Jerusalem has indeed been adduced as an ill consequence of that original
community of goods. But this cannot be taken as a sure proof of the
fact ; for since Christianity at first found acceptance among the poorer
classes, and the distress of the people at Jerusalem in those times must
have been extreme, it can be explained without having recourse to such
a supposition.
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE. 27
similar purposes was afterwards formed by public collections in
the apostolic churches.1
This practice of the first Christians, as we have remarked,
has been rendered memorable by the fate of Ananias and
Sapphira. Their example shows, how far the apostles were
from wishing to extort by outward requirements what ought
to proceed spontaneously from the power of the Spirit ; they
looked only for the free actings of a pure disposition. A
man named Ananias, and his wife Sapphira, were anxious not
to be considered by the apostles and the church as inferior to
others in the liberality of their contributions. Probably,
a superstitious belief in the merit of good works was mingled
with other motives, so that they wished to be at the same
time meritorious in God's sight. They could not, however,
prevail on themselves to surrender the whole of their pro
perty, but brought a part, and pretended that it was the
whole. Peter detected the dissimulation and hypocrisy of
Ananias, whether by a glance into the secret recesses of his
heart, imparted by the immediate influence of God's Spirit,
or by a natural sagacity derived from the same source,
we cannot decide with certainty from the narrative. Nor is
it a question of importance, for who can so exactly draw the
line between the divine and the human, in organs animated
by the Holy Spirit? The criminality of Ananias did not
consist in his not deciding to part with the whole amount of
his property ; for the words of Peter addressed to him show
that no exact measure of giving was prescribed ; each one
was left to contribute according to his peculiar circumstances,
and the degree of love that animated him. But the hypocrisy
with which he attempted to make a show of greater love than
he actually felt— the falsehood by which, when it took pos
session of his soul, the Christian life must have been utterly
polluted and adulterated— this it was which Peter denounced,
as a work of the spirit of Satan, for falsehood is the fountain
of all evil. Peter charged him with lying to the Holy
Spirit ; with lying not to men but to God ; since he nrast
have beheld in the apostles the organs of the Holy Spirit
speaking and acting in God's name— (that God who was him
self present in the assembly of believers, as a witness of his
1 This is confessedly no new view, but one adopted by Heumaan,
Mosheiin, and others before them.
28 THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH -IN PALESTINE.
intentions) — and yet thought that he could obtain credit
before God for his good works. Peter uttered his solemn
rebuke with a divine confidence, springing from a regard
to that holy cause which was to be preserved from all foreign
mixtures, and from the consciousness of being in an office
•entrusted to him by God, and in which he was supported by
divine power. When we reflect what Peter was in the eyes of
Ananias, how the superstitious hypocrite must have been con
founded and thunderstruck to see his falsehood detected, how
the holy denunciations of a man speaking to his conscience
with such divine confidence must have acted on his terrified
feelings, we shall find it not very difficult to conceive that the
words of the apostle would produce so great an effect. • The
•divine and the natural seem here to have been closely
connected. What Paul so confidently asserts in his Epistles
to the Corinthians, of his ability of inflicting punishment,
testifies of the conscious possession by the apostles of such
divine power. And when Sapphira, without suspecting what
had taken place, three hours after, entered the assembly,
Peter at first endeavoured to rouse her conscience by his
interrogations: but since, instead of being aroused to con
sideration and repentance, she was hardened in her hypocrisy,
Peter accused her of having concerted with her husband,
to put, as it were, the Spirit of God to the proof, whether he
might not be deceived by their hypocrisy. He then menaced
her with the judgment of God, which had just been inflicted
•on her husband. The words of the apostle were in this
instance aided by the impression of her husband's fate, and
striking the conscience of the hypocrite, produced the -same
•effect as on her husband. So terrible was this judgment, in
order to guard the first operations of the Holy Spirit, before the
admixture of that poison which is always most prejudicial to
the operations of divine power on mankind ; and to secure, a
•reverence for the apostolic authority, which was so important
as an external governing power for the development of the
primitive church, until it had advanced to an independent
steadfastness and maturity in the faith.
The disciples had not yet attained a clear understanding of
that call, which Christ had already given them by so many
intimations, to form a Church entirely separated from the
existing Jewish economy ; to that economy they adhered
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE. 29
as much as possible ; all the forms of the national theocracy
were sacred in their esteem, it seemed the natural element of
their religious consciousness, though a higher principle of life
had been imparted, by which that consciousness was to be
progressively inspired and transformed. They remained out
wardly Jews, although, in proportion as their faith in Jesus as
the Redeemer became clearer and stronger, they would
inwardly cease to be Jews, and all external rites would assume
a different relation to their internal life. It was their belief,
that the existing religious forms would continue till the
second coming of Christ, when a new and higher order of
things would be established, and this great change they
expected would shortly take place. Hence the establishment
of a distinct mode of worship was far from entering their
thoughts. Although new ideas respecting the essence of true
worship arose in their minds from the light of faith in
the Redeemer, they felt as great an interest in the Temple
worship as any devout Jews. They believed, however, that a
sifting would take place among the members of the theocracy,
and that the better part would, by the acknowledgment
of Jesus as the Messiah, be incorporated with the Christian
community. As the believers, in opposition to the mass of the
Jewish nation who remained hardened in their unbelief, now
formed a community internally bound together by the one
faith in Jesus as the Messiah, and by the consciousness of the
higher life received from him, it was necessary that this
internal union should assume a certain external form. And
a model for such a smaller community within the great
national theocracy already existed among the Jews, along
with the Temple worship, namely, the Synagogues. The
means of religious edification which they supplied, took
account of the religious welfare of all, and consisted of
united prayers and the addresses of individuals who applied
themselves to the study of the Old Testament. These means
of edification closely corresponded to the nature of the new
Christian worship. This form of social worship, as it was
copied in all the religious communities founded on Judaism,
(such as the Essenes,) was also adopted to a certain extent at
the first formation of the Christian church. But it may be
disputed, whether the apostles, to whom Christ committed
the chief direction of affairs, designed from the first that-
30 THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE.
believers should form a society exactly on the model of
the synagogue, and, in pursuance of this plan, instituted
particular offices for the government of the church cor
responding to that model — or whether, without such a
preconceived plan, distinct offices were appointed, as cir
cumstances required, in doing which they would avail them
selves of the model of the synagogue, with which they were
familiar.
The advocates of the first scheme (particularly Mosheim)
proceed on the undeniably correct assumption, that the
existence of certain presidents at the head of the Christian
societies, under the name of Elders (irpevfivTcpot), must be pre
supposed, though their appointment is not expressly men
tioned, as appears from Acts xi. 30. The question arises,
Whether even earlier traces cannot be found of the existence
of such Presbyters ? The appointment of deacons is indeed
first mentioned as designed to meet a special emergency, but
it seems probable that their office was already in existence.
It may be presumed, that the apostles, in order not to be
called off from the more weighty duties of their office,
appointed from the beginning such almoners ; but as these
officers hitherto had been chosen only from the native Jewish
Christians of Palestine, the Christians of Jewish descent, who
came from other parts of the Eoman Empire, and to whom
the Greek was almost as much their mother tongue as the
Aramaic, — the Hellenists as they were termed, — believed that
they were unjustly treated. On their remonstrance, deacons
of Hellenistic descent were especially appointed for them,
as appears by their Greek names. As the apostles declared
that they were averse from being distracted in their purely
spiritual employment of prayer and preaching the word by
the distribution of money, we may reasonably infer that even
before this time, they had not engaged in such business, but
had transferred it to other persons appointed for the purpose.
Still earlier, in Acts v., we find mention made of persons
under the title of vtwT-fpoi, veaviarKoi, who considered such an
employment as carrying a corpse out of the Christian assem
blies for burial as belonging to their office, so that they seem
to have been no other than deacons. And as the title of
younger stands in contrast with that of elders in the church,
the existence of servants of the church (3taWo<), and
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE. ol
of ruling elders (Trpeafivrepot), seems here to be equally
pointed out.
But though this supposition has so much plausibility, yet
the evidence for it, on closer examination, appeal's by no
means conclusive. It is far from clear that in the last quoted
passage of the Acts, the narrative alludes to persons holding
a distinct office in the church;1 it may very naturally be
understood of the younger members who were fitted for such
manual employment, without any other eligibility than the
fact of their age and bodily strength. And, therefore, we are
not to suppose that a contrast is intended between the
servants and ruling Elders of the church, but simply between
the younger and older members. As to the Grecian names
of the a seven deacons, it cannot be inferred with certainty
from this circumstance that they all belonged to the Hellenists,
for it is well known that the Jews often bore double names,
one Hebrew or Aramaic, and the other Hellenistic. Still it is
possible, since the complaints of the partial distribution of
alms came from the Hellenistic part of the church, that,
in order to infuse confidence and satisfaction, pure Hellenists
were chosen on this occasion. But if these deacons wero
appointed only for the Hellenists, it would have been most
natural to entrust their election to the Hellenistic part alone,
and not to the whole church.
1 Even after what has been urged by Meyer and Olshausen, in their
Commentaries on the Acts, against this view, I cannot give it up. In
accordance with the relation in which, anciently, and especially among
the Jews, the young stood to their elders, it would follow as a matter of
course, that the young men in an assembly would be ready to perform
any service which might be required. I do not see why (as Olshausen
maintains,) on that supposition, any other term than j/ewrepoi should
have been used — for, if Luke had wished to designate appointed ser
vants of the church, he would not have used this indefinite appella
tion; — nor can I feel the force of Olshausen's objection, that in that
passage of the Acts, the article would not have been used, but the pro
noun Tii/ey. Luke intended to mark, no doubt, a particular class
of persons, the younger contradistinguished from the elder, without
determining whether all or only some lent their assistance. But Ols
hausen is so far right, that if these are assumed to be regularly appointed
servants of the church, they cannot be considered as the forerunners of
the deacons chosen at a later period, for manifestly these veurcpoi held
a far lower place. I am glad to find an acute advocate of the view
I have taken in Rothe ; see his work on the Commencement of the
Christian Church, p. 162.
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN PALESTINE.
Hence we are disposed to believe, that the church was at
first composed entirely of members standing on an equality
with one another, and that the apostles alone held a higher
rank, and exercised a directing influence over the whole,
which arose from the original position in which Christ had
placed them in relation to other believers ; so that the whole
arrangement and administration of the affairs of the church
proceeded from them, and they were first induced by par
ticular circumstances to appoint other church officers, as in
the instance of deacons.
As in the government of the church in general the apostles
at first were the sole directors, all the contributions towards
the common fund were deposited with them (Acts v. 2), and
its distribution, according to the wants of individuals, was
altogether in their hands. From Acts vi. 2, it cannot be
positively inferred, that the apostles had not hitherto been
occupied with this secular concern. That passage may be
imderstood to intimate that they had hitherto attended to
this business without being distracted in their calling as
preachers of the Word, as long as the confidence universally
reposed in them, and the unity pervading the church, lightened
this labour ; but it assumed a very different aspect when
a, conflict of distinct interests arose between the members.
Meanwhile, the number of the believers increased so greatly.,
that it is probable, had there been no other reason, that the
apostles could not manage the distribution alone ; but con
signed a part of the business sometimes to one, sometimes to
another, who either offered themselves for the purpose, or
had shown themselves to be worthy of such confidence. Still
this department of labour had not yet received any regular
form.
But as the visible church received into its bosom various
elements, the opposition existing in these elements gradually
became apparent, and threatened to destroy the Christian
unity, until by the might of the Christian spirit this oppo
sition could be counterbalanced, and a higher unity developed.
The strongest opposition existing in the primitive church,
was that between the Palestinian or purely Jewish, and the
Hellenistic converts. And though the power of Christian
love at first so fused together the dispositions of these two
parties, that the contrariety seemed lost, yet the original
BY THE APOSTLE PAUL. 97
zealous confessor ; that Paul who, as he describes it in the
seventh chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, after the sense
of slavery had been excited to the utmost intensity in his
bosom, was at once transported into a state of freedom, b\
believing in the Redeemer. The bonds of Pharisaism were
in his case loosened instantaneously ; in his mind opposition
against Pharisaic Judaism took the place of opposition
against the gospel, as he says of himself (Philip, iii. 8), that for
Christ's sake he had suffered the loss of all those things which
he once prized, and all that once appeared to him so splendid
" he counted but as dung," that he might win Christ.
Thus from the beginning, by the illumination of the Spirit
alone, and according to the guidance of Christ's words, he
had been taught, in all its freedom and dopth, the genius of
the gospel in relation to Judaism, without having his views
modified by the influence of Peter,1 and those Christians
of Hellenistic descent, who had already preached the gospel
among the Gentiles. It was in consequence of this, that
Paul (since, like his precursor Stephen, he more freely deve
loped evangelical truth under this aspect in disputations with
1 That is, on the supposition that the conversion of Cornelius had
already taken place, which, taking into account its connexion with other
events, is most probable. The interest which the conversion of Cor
nelius and his family excited at Jerusalem, and the manner of Peter's
reception there, it would not be easy to explain, if they had already
been made acquainted with the effects of Christianity among the
Gentiles at Antioch. On the contrary, it is by no means apparent from
the mission of Barnabas to Antioch (Acts xi. 22), that they had still so
decided a scruple against the reception of believing Gentiles into the
Christian church. It would agree very well with the disposition they
manifested on that occasion, if we suppose that, by the example of
Cornelius and his family, and by the influence of Peter, they had been
induced to give up their decided opposition. But they might wish to
convince themselves by the investigations of an apostolic man, that
every thing was right in this church, consisting tor the most part
of Gentile Christians. Even when they had adopted more liberal
views on this subject, still there might be so much of their former feel
ing left, that they could not place the same confidence in a church
founded among the Gentiles as in one among the Jews. Though it is
possible that they sent so able a teacher thither, not from any feeling of
district, but for the establishment and furtherance of the work already
begun ; and chose a Hellenist as better fitted to publish the gospel
among people of Grecian descent. Auger's remarks, in his work
already quoted, p. 183, have occasioned an alteration in my former
views.
VOL. I. II
98 SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY.
the Hellenists) excited so strongly the indignation of the
Jews. On the other hand, the prospect opened to him of a
wider sphere of action among heathen nations. As he was
one day in the temple, and by prayer lifting up his soul to
the Lord, he was borne aloft from earthly things. In a vision
he received an assurance from the Lord, that though he would
be able to effect nothing at Jerusalem, on account of the
animosity of the Jews, he was destined to carry the doctrine
of salvation to other nations, even in remote regions ;
Acts xxii. 21. Accordingly, after staying in Jerusalem not
more than fourteen days, he was obliged to leave it, through
the machinations of the Jews. He now returned to his
native place, Tarsus, where he spent several years, certainly
not in inactivity ; for by his labours the gospel was spread
among both Jews and Gentiles in Tarsus and throughout
Cilicia ; there is good reason for believing, that to him
the Gentile churches, which in a short time we find in Cilicia,
owed their origin.1
1 The silence of the Acts respecting the labours of Paul in Cilicia,
cannot be brought as evidence against the fact, for the account it gives
of this period has many lacunae From the mariner in which Paul is
mentioned as secondary to Barnabas, till the time of their first mis
sionary journey, an argument might be drawn for his not having pre
viously entered on any independent sphere of labour. But the case
may be, that though Paul, as the younger and less known, was at first
spoken of as subordinate to Barnabas, the elder and approved publisher
of the gospel ; yet, by degrees, Paul's extraordinary exertions gave
a different aspect to their relative position. In Jerusalem they con
tinued for a longer time to assign the priority to Barnabas, as appears
from the apostolic Epistle in Acts xv. 25, a circumstance which
Bleek very justly adduces as a 7.iark of the unaltered originality of
this document; v. Studien und Kritiken, 1836, part iv. p. 1037. At
all events, one would rather assign a date some years later to the
conversion of Paul, (on which, too, we can never come to a decisive
conclusion,) than suppose that he could spend several years in his
native place without exerting himself for the propagation of Chris
tianity, — he who solemnly declares, that, from the time of his con
version, he felt so strongly the impulse of an inward call to preach the
gospel.
CIIUHCII AT ANTIOCH. 99
CHAPTER II.
TUB CHURCH AT ANTIOCH THE GENTILE MOTHER-CHURCH, AKD ITS DELA
TION TO THE JEWISH MOTHKK-CHUKCH.
Ix the mean time, as we have already remarked, Christianity
was propagated among the Gentiles by Hellenist teachers in
Antioch, the metropolis of Eastern Roman Asia. The news
of this event excited great interest among the Christians at
Jerusalem. It is true, the information was not received in
exactly the same manner as it would have been, if the
account of the operation of Christianity among the Gentiles
in the conversion of Cornelius had not materially contributed
to allay their prejudices. But still a measure of mistrust
was prevalent against the Gentile believers who were non-
observant of the Mosaic law, a feeling which, after many
repeated exhibitions of the divine power of the gospel among
Gentile Christians, lingered foi a long time in the majority of
Jewish believers. On this account, Barnabas, a teacher who
stood high in the general confidence, and who as a Hellenist
was better fitted to deal with Christians of the same class, was
commissioned to visit the new Gentile converts. On his
arrival he rejoiced in witnessing the genuine effects of the
gospel, and used his utmost endeavours to advance the work.
The extensive prospect which opened here for the advance
ment of the kingdom of God, occasioned his inviting Paul,
who had been active among the Gentiles in Cilicia, to become
his fellow-labourer. One evidence of the power with which
Christianity in an independent manner spread itself among
the Gentiles, was the new name of Christians which was here
given to believers. Among themselves they were called, the
Disciples of the Lord, the Disciples of Jesus, the Brethren,
the Believers. By the Jews names were imposed upon them
which implied undervaluation or contempt, such as the
Galileans, the Nazarenes, the Paupers ; and Jews would of
course not give them a name meaning the adherents of the
Messiah. The Gentiles had hitherto, on account of their
observance of the ceremonial law, not known how to dis
tinguish them from Jews. But now, when Christianity was
100 SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY.
spread among the Gentiles apart from the observance of the
ceremonial law, its professors appeared as an entirely new
religious sect (a genus tertium, as they were sometimes termed,
being neither Jews nor Gentiles) ; and as the term Christ was
held to be a proper name, the adherents of the new religious
teacher were distinguished by a word formed from it, as the
adherents of any school of philosophy were wont to be named
after its founder.
Antioch from this time occupied a most important place in
the propagation of Christianity, for which there were now two
central points ; what Jerusalem had hitherto been for this,
purpose among the Jews, that Antioch now became among
the Gentiles. Here first the two representations of Christi
anity, distinguished from one another by the predominance of
the Jewish or Gentile element, came into collision. As at
Alexandria, at a later period, the development of Christianity
had to experience the effect of various mixtures of the ancient
oriental modes of thinking with the mental cultivation of the
Grecian schools, so in this Roman metropolis of Eastern Asia,
it met with various mixtures of the oriental forms of religious
belief. From Antioch, at the beginning of the second century,
proceeded the system of an oriental-anti-Jewish Gnosis, which
opposed Christianity to Judaism.
As there was considerable intercourse between the two
churches at Jerusalem and Antioch, Christian teachers fre
quently came from the former to the latter ; among these
was1 a prophet named Agabus, who prophesied of an approach
ing famine, which would be felt severely by a great number
of poor Christians in Jerusalem, and he called upon the
believers in Antioch to assist their poorer brethren. This
famine actually occurred in Palestine about A.D. 44. l
The faculty of foretelling a future event, did not necessarily
enter into the New Testament idea of a prophet, if we assume
1 We cannot fix the exact time when this famine began. It is men
tioned by Josephus in his Antiq. book xx. ch. 2. § 5. It was so great
that numbers died in it from want. Queen Helena of Adiabene in
Syria, a convert to Judaism, sent a vessel laden with corn, which she
had purchased at Alexandria, and with fiirs procured in the island of
Cyprus, to Jerusalem, and caused these provisions to be distributed
among the poor. Luke, indeed, speaks of a famine that spread itself
over the whole oiKovpevr], which was not the cnse with this. To under
stand by olnovntv-r) in this passage, Palestine only, is not justified by the
HURCII AT ANTIOCII. 101
that Luke wrote from his own standing-point. An address
fitted to produce a powerful effect on an audience, one by
which Christians would be excited to deeds of beneficence,
would agree with the marks of a prophetic address in the
New Testament sense ; but as in the Acts it is expressly added
that the famine foretold by the prophet actually came to pass ;
we must doubtless admit, in this instance, that there was a
prediction of an impending famine, although it is possible that
the prophecy was founded on the observation of natural
prognostics.
The Christians at Antioch felt themselves bound to assist,
•in its temporal distress, that church from which they had
received the highest spiritual benefits, and probably sent their
contributions before the beginning of the famine, by the
hands of Paul and Barnabas, to the presiding elders of the
church at Jerusalem. This church, after enjoying about
eight years' peace, since the persecution that ensued on
Stephen's martyrdom, was once more assailed by a violent
but transient tempest. King Herod Agrippa, to whom the
Emperor Claudius had granted the government of Judea,
tuTjcted great zeal for the strict observance of the ancient
ritual, l although on many occasions he acted contrary to it,
on purpose to ingratiate himself with the Gentiles, just as by
his zeal for Judaism he tried to attach the Jewish people to
himself. Actuated by such motives, he thought it expedient
to manifest hostility to the teachers of1 the new doctrine, of
whom he had received unfavourable reports. He caused
James the son of Zebedee, and a brother of the apostle John,
who probably, by some particular act or discourse, had excited
the anger of the Jewish zealots, to be put to death ; and
during the Passover in the year 44, - he cast Peter into
New Testament phraseology; hut it is possihle that the famine ex
tended to olher parts, and we must then suppose the word to be used
somewhat rhetorically, and not with literal exactness, especially if wo
consider it as spoken by a prophet come from Jerusalem.
1 Josephus, Antiq. hook xix. eh. 6 and 7.!
2 For it was the last year of Herod Agrippa's reign, who held for at
least three whole years the sovereignty of Judea, (Joseph, xix. 8, 2;)
and. therefore, certainly reigned from the end of January 41, to the
beginning of the reign of Claudius, the end of January 44 ; so that only
the Passover of this last year could be intended, that which took place
after Herod had reigned three whole years.
SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY.
prison, intending that he should meet with the same fate after
the feast. But by the special providence of God, Peter was
delivered from prison, and the death of the king, which shortly
followed, once more gave peace to the church.
If Paul and Barnabas arrived at Jerusalem during this dis
turbed state of things, their stay was necessarily shortened by
it, and they could accomplish nothing of consequence. ' But
if \ve compare the account in the Acts, with the narrative of
the apostle Paul in the Epistle to the Galatians, and if we
assume that the journey to Jerusalem, which he there
mentions as the second, was really the second, this journey
would acquire great importance.2 We must then assume,
1 As the words /car' tKilvov T\W Kaipbv, in Acts xii. 1, cannot serve for
fixing the exact date, the coincidence of this journey of Paul's with the
events at Jerusalem, and the whole chronology founded upon it of the-
apostle's history, is not absolutely certain. Yet there is no valid argu
ment against this arrangement.
2 Iremeus adv. H seres, lib. iii. c. 13, seems to consider it as settled
that this was Paul's third journey. But what Tertullian says (contra
M.-ircion, i. 20), goes on the supposition that it was his second journey.
He alleges the same reason for thinking so, as Keil, in his essay on the
subject lately published in his Opuscula; that Paul, in the first glow of
his conversion, was more violent against Judaism, but latterly his
feelings towards it were mollified. Thus he explains the dispute with
Peter at Antioch. " Paulus adhuc in gratia rudis, ferventer ut adhue
ncophytus adversus Judaismum." (It is contradictory to this suppo
sition that he allows Paul to have given way to the Judaizers at Jeru
salem, in reference to the circumcision of Titus, cont. Marcion, v. 3 ;}
and it would entirely correspond with the character of Paul and the
mo<le of his conversion, that, at first, he should engage in fiercer oppo
sition to the observance of the law, than that his mind should gradually
bi. • developed in that freer direction. Yet this supposition, as we shall
afterwards show, is by no means supported by historical evidence.
What is advanced by Wurm, in his essay already quoted, in the
Tubingen ZeitscUriftfur Theologie, against my application of the first
passige from Tenuilian, is not correct. I have here remarked on the
contradiction between the two passages, and in a writer of Tertnllian's-
cast of mind — highly as we esteem the depth, fire, and vigour of his
genius— such a contradiction is not very surprising. — But from Tertull.
c. iMarcion, Jib. v. 2, 3, it is by no means clear, that he considered the
secon i journey mentioned in the Epistle to the Galatians, as the same
with that which was followed by the resolutions of the apostolic
assembly at Jerusalem. Tertullian only says, that the Acts of the
Apostles — whose credibility was not acknowledged by Marcion — repre-
R"iited the principles on which Paul acted, not differently from what
Paul states them to be in an Epistle admitted as genuine by Marcion;
consequently, the account of Luke, in this respect, must be credible.
CHURCH AT ANTIOCH. 103
that although the conveyance of the collection to Jerusalem
was the avowed object and motive of this journey, yet Paul
himself had another and more important end in view, which
probably induced him to be the bearer of the contributions.
As the strictly Pharisaical Jews held it absolutely necessary
for the Gentiles to submit to the whole ceremonial law, and
particularly to circumcision,1 in order to enjoy the blessings
of theocracy ; as the mistrust of the Jewish Christians had
already, as we have before remarked, manifested itself against
the Gentile converts ; and as the consequences of this state of
feeling might have already appeared in the church at Antioch,
which stood in so close a connexion with the parent church
at Jerusalem ; it is not at all improbable, that Paul and Bar
nabas felt it to be their imperative duty, in order to guard
against a dangerous disagreement, to come to an under
standing with the apostles at Jerusalem on this subject, and
to unite with them in establishing fixed principles respecting
it. Yet in itself it is more probable, that such a mutual
explanation took place earlier, than that it occurred at so late
a period. 2 Such a conference of Paul and Barnabas with the
three most eminent of the apostles, could not well be held at
that time, since one of them was cast into prison ; but too-
great an uncertainty is attached to the dates of these events,
to render this objection of much weight. And it agrees with
So then, Tcrtullian, i. 9, by rud is fides means the same as in the passage
first quoted. The rudis fides in that passage, is a faith still young and
not fully tried, which hence could not possess so independent an autho
rity ; "hoc enim (the temporary concession in reference to the circum
cision of Titus) rudifidei et adhuc de legis observatione suspenses (in
reference to which it was still disputed whether they were not bound to
the observance of the law) competebat," namely, until Paul had suc
ceeded in having his independent call to the apostleship and its peculiar
grounds, acknowledged by the other apostles.
1 A Jewish merchant, named Ananias, who had converted King
Izates of Adiabene, the son of Queen Helena, to Judaism, assured him
that he might worship Jehovah without being circumcised, and even
sought to dfssuade him from it, that it might not cause an insurrection
of his people. But when another stricter Jew, Eleazar, came thither,
he declared to the king that since he acknowledged the divine authority
of the Mosaic law, he would sin by neglecting anv of its commands,
and therefore no consideration ought to prevent his compliance.
Joseph. Arcliseol. lib. xx. c. 2, § 4. And such was the opinion of the
converts to Christianity from among the Jews, who, to use the words of
Joscphus, were a*cpij3eTs irepl ra Trdrpia,.
a As Dr. Paulus remarks in his Excgctical Manual, i. 1, p. 238.
104 SPEEAD OF CHRISTIANITY
the existing circumstances of the church, that this conference
is represented as a private transaction of Paul's with the most
eminent of the apostles ; l partly because the matter did not
appear sufficiently ripe for a public discussion ; partly because,
by the persecution set on foot by King Agrippa, the intended
public conference might be prevented. By this supposition,
we therefore gain a connecting link in the history of the
transactions between the Jewish and Gentile converts, and
thus the two historical documents, the Acts of the Apostles
and the Epistle to the Galatians, serve to supply what is
necessary for the completion of each. But, in the first place,
the chronology of the common reading, supported by the
authority of all the manuscripts,2 is irreconcileable with this
hypothesis, for we must reckon Paul's conversion to have
taken place fourteen years earlier, which would be a compu
tation wholly untenable. And, secondly, the relation in
which Paul, according to the description in the Acts, stood at
any given time to Barnabas, the elder preacher of the gospel,
wTill not agree with this view. For at an earlier period,
according to the slight notices furnished us by the Acts, Paul
appears in a subordinate relation, both of age and disciple-
ship, to the elder preacher of the gospel. It was not till ho
undertook the missionary journey with Barnabas from An-
1 The /car' iSiav 5e, Gal. ii. 2, -which contains an antithesis to S-rj/j-oaia.
Yet public conferences are by no means excluded ; for it is not clear
that the words KO.T' I5iav follow what was before said merely as a limit
ing explanatory clause. Paul, perhaps, might not except some special
topic of importance from the ai/eOeiifv avrols (which must principally
relate to his Christian brethren in Jerusalem), — his private conferences
with James, Peter, and John ; or he might design to notice only the
public, and afterwards the important private conferences, altogether
parsing over the former. Compare AVurin, p. 51 : Auger, p. 149.
2 The ^hronicon PascJiale Alexandrinum, ed.JNiebuhr, p. 436, cer
tainly forms an exception, according to which Paul took this second
journey four years after his conversion; and this computation supposes
the reading to be Ttffo-dowv e'rwi/, instead of Se/careo-cr. Such a reading
being assumed, we inny easily understand IIOAV IA was formed from A.
And according to this reading, if we refer it to the second journey of
Paul mentioned in the Acts, everything will readily agree with such a
computation ; only, if we reckon these four years from the conversion
of St. Paul, that event must be placed about the year 40. But still it
remains uncertain, Avhether the computation in the Chronicon Pasckale
is founded on a critical conjecture, or on the authority of a manuscript;
and, at all events, the opposing evidence of all manuscripts and quota
tions from the Fathers is too important.
BY PAUL AND BARXABAS. 105
tioch, in which he was the most prominent agent, that that
apostolic superiority developed itself, which was afterwards
exhibited in the transactions at Jerusalem. Still we cannot
consider this remark as decisive of the question ; for we may
feel confident that such a man as Paul, especially if we grant
his independent labours in Cilicia, must have come forward,
even before the period of his apostolic superiority, with extra
ordinary efficiency when the occasion demanded it.
Since there was no deficiency of teachers in the church at
Antioch, we may presume that, after the conversion of the
Gentiles had once begun, the publication of the gospel would
be extended from Syria to other heathen nations. Barnabas
and Paul had probably at an early period expressed their
desire to be employed in a wider sphere for the conversion of
the Gentiles, as Paul had been assured by the Lord of his
appointment tto carry the gospel to distant nations. And as
Barnabas had brought his nephew Mark with him from Jeru
salem to Antioch, it is not unlikely that he was prompted to
this step by the prospect of a more extensive field in which
lie might employ his relation as a fellow-labourer. The
teachers who were assembled at Antioch appointed a day of
fasting and prayer, to lay this matter before the Lord, and to
pray for his illumination to direct them what to do. A firm
persuasion was imparted to them all by the Spirit of God,
that they ought to set apart and send forth Barnabas and
Paul to the work to which they were called by the Lord.
CHAPTER III.
THE PROPAGATION OF CHRISTIANITY FROM ANTIOCH BY PAUL AND
BARNABAS.
ACCOMPANIED by Mark, they first visited the island of Cyprus,
the native country of Barnabas, whose ancient connexion with
it facilitated the introduction of the gospel. They traversed
the island from east to west, from Salamis to Paphos. In their
teaching they followed the track which history had marked
out for them, that method by which the gospel must spread
106 SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY
itself among the heathen. As the Jews, in virtue of their con
nexion with the theocratic development, and of the promises
intrusted to them, had the first claim to the announcement of
the Messiah ;* as they were in a state of the greatest prepara-
'louSat&j, Rom. i. 16, compared with John iv. 22. The credi
bility of what is narrated in the Acts on this and other occasions,
respecting the manner in which Paul turned to the Gentiles, imme
diately after the ill reception which he met with from the Jews assem
bled in the synagogue, would be shaken, if Dr. Bauer were correct in his
assertion, (see his Essay on the Object and Occasion of the Epistle to
the Romans, in the Tubingen Zeitschrift fur Theologie, 1836, part iii.
p. 101,) that the author of the Acts did not give a faithful relation of
objective facts, but modified them according to his peculiar views and
design ; that this is to be explained from the apologetic design with
which he maintains the position, that the gospel reached the Gentiles only
through the criminality and unbelief of the Jews. This is connected
with Bauer's idea of an anti-Pauline party, consisting of persons who
took offence at the Pauline universalism, (his preaching the gospel both
to Jews and Gentiles,) and which had its seat at Rome. For this party,
such an apologetic representation of Paul's ministry must be designed.
We might be allowed to cast such a suspicion on the representations in
the Acts, if any thing artificial was to be found in them, any thing not
corresponding to what might be expected from the circumstances of the
times. But if the line of conduct ascribed to the apostle, and its con
sequences, appear altogether natural under the circumstances, it does
not appear how we can be justified in deducing the repetition (of Paul's
mode of acting) grounded in the nature of the thing, not from that but
from the subjective manner of the narrator. Now, in all the cities
where synagogues existed, they formed the most convenient places for
making known the gospel, when Paul was not disposed to appear in the
public market-places as a preacher. Here he found the proselyte*
assembled, who formed a channel of communication with the Gentiles ;
and in the passage quoted from the Epistle to the Romans, the principle
is stated according to which the Jews had the first claim to the publica
tion of the gospel. Love to his own people produced the eai-nest desire
to effect as much as possible for their salvation, along with his calling
as an apostle of the Gentiles, Rom. xi. 13. That I have brought forward
this from the Epistle to the Romans, which Bauer has made use of as a
proof of the existence of such an apologetic interest, is not on my part a
mere petitio principii, for I cannot in any way reconcile it with the
character of the apostle, that he could express such principles and such
desires merely from motives of expediency. But it was natural that he
should turn away from the great ma^s of the carnally-minded Jews, if he
found only here and there individuals among them of susceptible dis
positions, and devote himself to the Gentiles alone. It does not follow
from this that his call to the apostleship among the heathen was deter
mined merely by accidental circumstances: for if he found a greater
number of Jews in a city disposed to believe, yet his other calling would
not thereby have been frustrated ; but among the converted Hellenistic
BY PAUL AND BARNABAS. 107
tion, and places already existed among them for the purposes
of religious instruction ; it was on these accounts natural that
the apostles should first enter the synagogues, and the prose
lytes of the gate, whom they here met with, afforded them the
most convenient point of transition from the Jews to the
Gentiles. In Paphos, they found in the proconsul, Sergius
Paulus, a man dissatisfied with all that philosophy and the
popular religion could offer for his religious wants, and anxious
to receive every thing which presented itself as a new com
munication from heaven ; hence, he was eager to hear what
Paul and Barnabas announced as a new divine doctrine. But,
owing to that sense of religious need, unsatisfied by any clear
knowledge, he had given ear to the deceptive arts of an
itinerant Jewish Goes, Barjesus. These Goefoe were in suc
ceeding times1 the most virulent opposers of Christianity,
because it threatened to deprive them of their domination
over the minds of men ;2 and for the same reason, this man
Jews, who were more closely related to those who were Greeks by birth
or education, he would have found assistance for establishing the Chris
tian church among the Gentiles ; and when after so many painful ex
periences, he had little hopes of success among the Jews, still he could
not give up the attempt to do something for his countrymen, if by any
means he might save some ; especially since he could so well unite this
with the interests of his calling, and could find no more convenient and
unostentatious method of paving his way to the Genti'es. And does
not the peculiar mixture in the churches of Gentile-Christians, the
influence of Judaizers upon them, give evidence of their origination ?
Kom. xi. 12 will also establish this point. And that the author of the
Acts has given a narrative consistent with facts and the actual state of
tilings, is shown by this, that when describing the entrance of Paul at
Athens, he does not repeat the same method of proceeding, but repre
sents him as acting in a different manner, adapted to the local pecu
liarities. Throughout the Acts, I can perceive no traces of any thing
but an historical object, which the author has pursued according to the
means of information within his reach.
1 On this account, it v/as not at all uncommon for such sorcerers to
find access to men of the highest rank. Thus Lucian narrates, that the
most distinguished men in Home most eagerly inquired after the pro
phecies of a sorcerer, Alexander of Abonateiehos, in Pontus, who
acquired great notoriety in the reign of the Emperor Marcus Aurelius ;
among the zealous adherents of Alexander, he mentions especially an
eminent Roman statesman, Rutilianus, of whom he says— av}]() ra plv
£\A.a Ka.\bs Hal ayaQbs Kai tv iro\\ais 7rpa£e<ri faij.a.'iKa'ts f'|7jr cur Deltas , TO.
5« Trepl rous 0€ous irdvv voaiav. Lucian. Alexand. § 30.
2 Of which the Alexander mentioned in the preceding note is an
example.
108 SPREAD OP CHRISTIANITY
took the utmost pains to hinder the spread of the gospel, and
to prejudice the proconsul against it. But Paul, full of holy
indignation, declared with divine confidence, that the Lord
would punish him with the loss of that eye-sight which he
only abused, by attempting with his arts of deception to stop
the progress of divine truth. The threatening was immediately
fulfilled ; and by this sensible evidence of the operation of a
higher power, the proconsul was withdrawn from the influence
of the Goes, and rendered more susceptible of divine in
struction.
Thence they directed their course further northward : passed
over to Pamphylia, and along the borders of Phrygia, Isauria,
and Pisidia, and made a longer stay at the considerable city
of Antioch,1 (which, as a border-city, was at different periods
reckoned as belonging to different provinces,) in order to
allow time for making known the gospel. Paul's discourse in
the synagogue is a specimen of the peculiar wisdom and skill
of the great apostle in the management of men's dispositions,
and of his peculiar antithetical mode of developing Christian
truth. He sought first to win the attention and confidence of
his hearers, by reminding them how God had chosen their
fathers to be his people, and then gave an outline of God's
dealings with them, to the times of David, the individual
from whose posterity, according to the promises, the Messiah
was to spring. After the introduction he came to the main
object of his address, to the appearance of the Messiah, and to
what he had effected for the salvation of mankind. Then
turning to the Jews and proselytes present, he proceeded to
say, that for them this announcement of salvation was de
signed, since those to whom it was first proposed, the Jews at
Jerusalem, and their ruler's, had been unwilling to receive it ;
they had not acknowledged the Messiah, nor understood the
prophecies, which they heard read every Sabbath-day in their
synagogues.2 Yet, while in their blindness they condemned
the Messiah to death, they could not retard the fulfilment of
the prophecies, but against their design and will, contributed
1 To distinguish it from the Asiatic metropolis, it is called 'AvTiox€«/a
irpos T7i(T(5ia.
3 Only using milder expressions, Paul here says the same things of
the blindness of the Jews, which he often says in stronger and more
sovere language in his Epistles, accusing them of obduracy.
BY PAUL AND BARNABAS. 109
to it ; for after he had suffered all things which according to
the predictions of the prophets he was to suffer, he rose from,
the dead. By faith in him they could obtain forgiveness of
sins and justification, which they could never have obtained
by the law.1 And after announcing this promise to them,
Paid closed with a threatening warning to unbelievers. This
discourse, uttered with all the impressiveness of firm faith, and
yet evincing so much tenderness towards the Jews, made at
first a favourable impression upon them, and, in the name of
the whole assembly, they requested him to expound his doc
trine more fully on the next Sabbath.2 Such was tho
1 To justify my views of this passage, I must make a few remarks on
the right interpretation of Acts xiii. 39. I cannot so understand it as
if the apostle meant to say — Through Christ men obtain forgiveness of
all sins, even of those of which forgiveness could not be obtained
through the law. The apostle certainly knew only one forgiveness of
sins and one justification ; and he used the term irdvTiav only to mark
the completeness of the removal of guilt, as the idea of $iKaio<rvi>t) pre
supposes this; but the preceding ira.vr<av, to refer the relative pronoun
by a kind of logical attraction to this term of universality, rather than
to the whole idea of SiKiaoad^vai, which lie had especially in view. What
Meyer says in his commentary in defence of the common interpretation,
does not convince me. " Paul," he remarks, " specifies one part of the
universal acpecm apagr LUV as particularly worthy of notice, but this does
not at all injure the unity of the forgiveness of sins and justification." I
do not perceive how Paul, from his point of view, could render one
special part more prominent than another; I know indeed of no sin
from which a man could be justified on the standing-point of the law;
in Paul's mind, there could be here no difference whatever. The pecu
liarly Pauline style of carrying out the opposition between faith and the
law here appears in the germ.
2 If, in Acts xiii. 42, we take juerafv in its usual acceptation, we must
understand the passage thus : Paul and Barnabas were requested to ex
plain the Christian doctrine to them during the week between this and
the next S ibbath, therefore before the next celebration of the Sabbath.
Such a request would be very suitable, if we understand it as that of in
dividuals who wished to hear discourses on the doctrine in their private
circles during the week. But it does not appear so proper as a wish
expressed by the whole congregation at the synagogue. We should most
natu-ally refer it to the Gentiles, and on that account must consider the
reading ra tQvt\ in the 4'2d verse as correct, though it has the appearance
of a gloss. Also the word o-ctfl^aroi/ in the Acts is never used in tho
sense of a week ; for the phrase /j.ia ffappdruv cannot be brought as u
voucher for this meaning. But if we understand rb fj-frafu ad^arov, of
the next Sabbath, all will be clear; and a comparison with verse 44
favours this interpretation, which is also sanctioned by the ancient,
glosses and scholia in Griesbach and Matthai. From the earlier Greek
110 SPUE AD OF CHRISTIANITY
impression made by his words on the assembly in general.
But there were many among the Jews present, and especially
the proselytes, who were more deeply affected than the rest by
the power of truth, and who longed after the redemption
announced by Paul. They could not wait till the next Sab
bath, but hastened after Paul, who had left the synagogue
with Barnabas ; they informed them of the impressions they
had received, and earnestly requested more ample instruction.
'Paul and Barnabas consequently availed themselves of many
opportunities to explain the divine doctrine in private houses
during the course of the week, and likewise to make it known
among the Gentiles. Hence, by the next Sabbath, the new
doctrine of salvation had obtained notoriety through the
whole city, and a multitude of the Gentile inhabitants flocked
to the synagogue in order to hear Paul's discourse. This was
a spectacle sufficient to stir up the wrath of the Jews, who
were filled with spiritual pride, and a delusive notion of their
superiority as members of the ancient theocracy, and hence
this discourse of Paul's was not heard with the same favour
able disposition and calmness as the first. He was interrupted
by violent contradictions and reproaches. He then declared
to them, that since they were not disposed to receive the salva
tion announced to them, and excluded themselves from it to
their own condemnation, the preachers of the gospel had dis
charged their obligations, and would now turn to the Gentiles,
who had shown themselves disposed to receive their instruc-
writers it is certainly difficult to find an authority for this meaning of
fiera£i\ but not from the later. In Plutarch's Institula Lacoinca, c. 42,
juera£i; occurs twice in this sense, and especially in the second passage,
TO?S /j.€Ta£v MoKeSoytKoTs )3acriAea)v, (" the Macedonian kings afar Philip
and Alexander,") for it cannot he otherwise understood ; anil so likewise
in Josephus, De Bello Jud. lib. v. c. 4, § 2, where, after speaking of
David and Solomon, he says, TUV jueTo£u TOVTW j8a<nAe«i/, wh cli can
only mean, " the kings after these." — I consider t,he words e« rr,s
avvaytay^ ruv 'lov^a'nav and the words TO *.6vt] as glosses, founded on a
misunderstanding; hut I cannot, with Kuinoel, take the whale of the
verse, so strongly accredited as genuine, to be only a gloss. What is
Eaid in this verse, may be considered as marking the vivid representa
tion of an event by an eye-witness. As Paul and Barnabas were go ng
away before the whole of the congregation had separated, they were re
quested by the elders of the synagogue to repeat their addresses on the
next Sabbath. But after the whole congregation had separated, many in
dividuals ran after them to open their hearts to them more unreservedly.
BY PAUL AND BARNABAS. Ill
tions, and that the gospel was designed to be a fountain of
light and salvation to nations in the uttermost parts of the
earth. Thus Paul and Barnabas left the synagogue with the
believing Gentiles, and a suitable chamber in the dwelling of
one of their number, probably,, was the first place of assembling
for the church that was now formed. Christianity spread itself
through the whole circumjacent district ; but the Jews con
trived, by means of the female proselytes belonging to the most
respectable families in the city, l and their influence on their
husbands, to raise a persecution against Paul and Barnabas, so
that they were obliged to leave the place. They proceeded to
the city of Iconium, about ten miles to the east, in Lycaonia,2
where they had access to both Jews and Gentries. But by the
influence of the hostilely disposed among the former, who also
here had gained over to their side a part of the people and the
magistrates, they were driven from this city also. They now
betook themselves to other cities in the same province, and
first tarried in the neighbouring town of Lystra. As in this
place there was no synagogue, and scarcely any Jews dwelt in
it, they could make known the gospel only by entering into
conversation3 in places of public resort, and thus leading per
sons to religious subjects; gradually small groups were formed,
which were increased by many, who were attracted by curiosity
or interest in the subject of conversation. Paul was one day
thus instructing in divine truth a company who had gathered
round him, when a man who had been lame from his birth, and
probably was used to sit for alms in a thoroughfare of the city,
listened to him with great attention. The divine in the ap
pearance and discourse of Paul deeply impressed him, and
caused him to look up with confidence as if he expected a cure
from him. When Paul noticed this, he said to him with a
loud voice, " Stand upright on thy feet ;" and he stood up
and walked.4
1 Here, as at Damascus, (and other instances might be mentioned,)
Judaism found most acceptance with females, as Christianity did after-
wa-ds.
2 In other times it was considered as belonging to Phrygia or Pisidia.
* A frequent practice of modern missionaries in Asia.
4 Only he will feel compelled to believe this who acknowledges the new
divine powers of life, which through Christ have been introduced to the
human race. But whoever is not entangled in a mechanical view of
112 SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY
This sight attracted a still larger crowd, and the credulous
people now esteemed the two apostles to be more than men, —
gods, who had come down in human form to confer benefits on
men. A belief of this kind, deeply seated in the human breast,
and proceeding from the undeniable feeling of the connexion
of the human race with God, was spread from ancient times
among the heathen, * and at that period was much increased
by the existing religious ferment. Now in this city Zeus was
worshipped as the founder of cities, as the originator, guide,
and protector of civilization,2 as the founder and protector of
this city in particular (Zevg noXuvc, iroXtovxpc), and a temple
at the entrance of the city was dedicated to him.3 Accord
ingly the people imagined that their tutelar deity, Zeus him
self, had come down to them ; and as Paul was foremost in
speaking, and possessed — as we may conclude from his
Epistles, and his speech at Athens — a peculiarly powerful
address, and a high degree of popular eloquence, he was taken
for Hermes, while Barnabas his senior, who perhaps had some
thing imposing in his appearance, was believed to be Zeus.
The people made their remarks to one another on these
strangers in the old Lycaonian dialect, so that Paul and Bar
nabas were not aware of their drift, and were therefore quite
unprepared for the result. The news of the appearance of
these supposed divinities quickly reached the temple, and a
priest came with oxen, which were generally sacrificed to
nature, whoever acknowledges the power of Spirit over nature, and a
hidden dynamic connexion between soul and body— to such a person it,
cannot appear wholly incredible that the immediate impression of a
divine power operating on the whole internal being of man, should pro
duce results of altogether a different kind from remedies taken out of
the stores of the ordinary powers of nature.
1 The Homeric Geol ^elvoiaiv eoucSres oAA05air<w<n, Havroloi reXfOovTQS
eina-TgfDQwfft 7ro\y)as. Od. §. 485.
2 As Aristides in his discourse tls Aj'a says, that as Zeus is the
Creator and Giver of all good things, he is to be worshipped under
manifold titles according to these various relations, riai/0' off a auras e5pe
U67aAa Kal favr^irpfTrovra o^J/xara.
3 Libanius uirep ruv lepwv, ed. Reiske, vol. ii. p. 1 58, remarks that cities-
were built in the immediate vicinity of temples, hence frequently the
buildings nearest the walls were ancient temples ; as in the middle ages,
the site of towns was often determined by that of the churches and reli
gious houses, and as in our own times, in the South Sea Islands, settle
ments are formed near the residence of the missionaries, which gradually
become villages and towns.
BY PAUL AND BARNABAS. 113
Zeus, and with garlands to adorn them, to the gates of the
city ; ' whether he wished to sacrifice to Zeus before the gate
for the welfare of the city ; or intended to bring the animals
to Paul's residence, and there to perform the sacrifice ; but
before he had entered the gates, Paul and Barnabas hastened
thither, full of consternation, as soon as they discovered the
object of these preparations. They rent their garments — a
customary sign among the Jews of abhorrence for whatever
outraged the religious feelings — and rushed among the crowd.
Paul exclaimed, " What do ye ! We are men like yourselves ;
we are come hither for this very purpose, that you may turn
from these who are no gods, to the living God, the Almighty
Creator of the universe, who hitherto has allowed the nations
of the earth to try by their own experience how far they can
attain in the knowledge of religion by the powers of their own
reason, but who yet has not left himself without witnesses
among them, by granting them all good things from heaven,
and supplying them with those gifts of nature which contri
bute to the preservation of life and to their general well-
being."2
Even by such an appeal it was difficult to turn the people
from their purpose. Yet this impression on the senses, so
powerful for a short time, soon passed away from men who
were not affected internally by the power of truth. The
Jews from Iconium succeeded in instigating the greater part
of the people against Paul. He was stoned in a popular
tumult, and dragged out of the city for dead. But while the
believers from the city were standing round him and using
means for his restoration, he arose, strengthened by the power
of God ; and after spending only the remainder of that day at
Lystra, departed with Barnabas to the neighbouring town of
1 The word irvXwves, Acts xiv. 13, a3 no other term is added, may be
most naturally understood of the city gates, uot of the door of the house
in which Paul and Barnabas were staying : in the latter case, the plural
would hardly have been used. The t^in'iS^ffav in verse 14 can prove
nothing; for it might easily be omitted to state whether they heard of
what had happened while in their lodging, and now hastened to the gates,
or that they were at that time near the gates. Perhaps Luke himself had
no exact information on these points.
2 The sense of benefits received should have been the means of leading
men to the Giver. From a perversion of this sense arose systems of
natural religion, to which the immediate revelation of God opposed itself
— appealing to that original but misunderstood and misdirected sense.
VOL. I. I -
114: bPilEAD OF OHJclirfTIANITr.
Derbe. When they had proclaimed the gcspel there and in
the neighbourhood,1 they again visited those towns in which
they had propagated the fciith on this journey, and which
through persecutions they had been obliged to leave sooner
than they wished ; they endeavoured to establish the faith of
the new converts, and regularly organized the churches.
They then returned by their former route to Antioch.
CHAPTER IV.
THE DIVISION BETWEEN THE JEWISH AND GENTILE CHRISTIANS AND ITS
SETTLEMENT. THE INDEPENDENT DEVELOPMENT OP THE GENTILE CHURCH.
WHILE in this manner Christianity spread itself from Antioch,
the parent-church of the Gentile world, and that great revo
lution began, which has continued ever since to work its way
among the nations, a division threatened to break out between
the two parent-churches, those two central points from which
the kingdom of God began to extend itself. It was a great
crisis in the history of the church and of mankind. The
hidden contrarieties were destined to come forth in order to
be overcome by the power of Christianity and reconciled with
one another. The question was, in fact, whether the gospel
TI ould succeed not only then, but through all future ages.
There came to Antioch many strictly pharisaical-minded
Christians from Jerusalem, who, like the Eleazar we have
already mentioned, assured the Gentiles that they could not
obtain any share in the kingdom of God and its blessedness
without circumcision, and entered into a controversy with
Paul and Barnabas on the views they held on this subject.
The church at Antioch resolved to send a deputation to Jeru
salem for the settlement of this dispute, and their choice
naturally fell on Paul ana Barnabas, as the persons who had
1 The Trepixwpos evidently means only the places lying in the imme
diate vicinity of these two towns, certainly not a whole province, and
least of all, from its geographical position, the province of Galatia.
Hence the supposition that Paul in this first missionary journey preached
the gospel to the Galatians is proved to be untenable.
DEVELOPMENT OP THE GENTILE CHURCH. 115
been most active in the propagation of the gospel among the
Gentiles. Paul had, besides, a special reason which would
have determined him to undertake the journey without any
public commission. It appeared now the fittest time for ex
plaining himself to the apostles respecting the manner in which
he published the gospel among the heathen, in order to bring
into distinct recognition their unity of spirit amidst their
diversity of method — (as the latter was necessary through the
diversity of their spheres of action) — and to obviate all those
contrarieties by which the consciousness of that essential unity
could be disturbed. He felt assured by divine illumination,
that an explanation on this subject was essential for the well-
being of the church. The proposal to send such a deputation
to Jerusalem probably originated with himself. He went up
to Jerusalem1 in the year 50, in order (as he himself tells us
in the Epistle to the Galatians), partly for private interview
with the most eminent of the apostles ; partly to render an
account in public before the assembled church of his conduct
in publishing the gospel, that no one might suppose that all
his labours had been in vain, but might learn that he preached
the same gospel as themselves, and that it had been effective
with divine power among the Gentiles. He took with him a
converted youth of Gentile descent, Titus, (who afterwards
became his chief associate in preaching,) -in order to exhibit in
his person a living example of the power of the gospel among
the heathen.
Before a public consultation was held at Jerusalem, there
were many private conferences. 2 The most important result
was, that after Paul had given a full account to the apostles,3
1 On the supposition that Paul, in his Epistle to the Galatians,
reckons fourteen years from his conversion, and that this took place in
the year 36. About six years would have passed since his return from
Jerusalem to Antioch.
3 We have already remarked, that though Paul, in l.is Epistle to the
Galatians, particularly mentions his private conferences with the most .
eminent apostles, yet in doing so, he by no means excludes other public
discussions. Indeed, it is self-evident, that Paul, before this subject;
was discussed in so large an assembly, had agreed with the apostles on
the principles that were to be adopted. Nor would he in an assembly
composed of such a variety of characters, bring forward everything
vhich might have passed in more private communications.
* The order in which the three apostles are mentioned is not unim
portant. The reading according to which James stands first, is without
116 ' SPREAD OP CHRISTIANITY.
James, Peter, and John, of his method of publishing the
gospel to the Gentiles and of the fruit of his labours, they
acknowledged the divine origin of his apostleship, instead of
presuming to dictate to him as his superiors. They agreed
that he should continue to labour independently among the
heathen, making only one stipulation, that, as heretofore, the
Gentile churches should continue to relieve the temporal
wants of the poor Christians at Jerusalem. In the private
circles also, in which Paul and Barnabas recounted what God
had effected by their preaching among the Gentiles, their
accounts were received with joyful interest, But some who
had passed over to Christianity from the Pharisaic school,
now came forward and declared that it was necessary that the
Gentiles should receive circumcision along with the gospel,
and that they could acknowledge them as Christian brethren
only on this condition, and therefore insisted that Titus
should be circumcised. But Paul strenuously maintained
against them the equal privileges of the Gentiles in the
kingdom of God, and that by faith in the Redeemer they had
entered into the same relation towards God as the believing
Jews : for this reason, he would not give way to them in
reference to Titus, for this would have been interpreted by
the Pharisaic Jewish Christians as a concession of the prin
ciple for which they contended. l
As these objections gave rise to much altercation, it was
doubt the true one ; the other must have been derived from the custom
of giving Peter the primacy among the apostles. But the priority is
given to James, because he was most esteemed by the Jewish Christians,
who were strict observers of .the Mosaic Law, and stood at the head of
the church at Jerusalem, while Peter, by his intercourse with the Gen
tiles and Gentile Christians, was in some degree estranged from that
party.
1 The reading which omits ofs ouSe in Gal. ii. 5, would suppose, or
the contrary, a concession of Paul in this case, but which, tinder the
existing circumstances, would be wholly inconsistent with the character
of the apostle. This peculiar reading of the old Latin church, evidently
proceeded in part from the difficulty of the construction for the Latin
translation, and partly from the perception of a supposed contradiction
between the conduct of Paul with Titus, and his conduct with Timothy,
and likewise from opposition to Marcion. That in the Greek church,
which, in consequence of the principle of the oliiovo^ia predominating
in it, must have been much disposed to such a reading, no trace of it
can be found, proves how very much the authority of the manuscripts is
against it.
DEVELOPMENT OP THE GENTILE CHURCH. 117
thought . necessaiy that the subject should be discussed in a
convention of the whole church ; but this was afterwards
changed into a meeting of chosen delegates. ! At this meeting,
after much discussion, Peter rose up, to appeal to the testi
mony of his own experience. They well knew, he said, that
God had long before2 chosen him, to bring the Gentiles to
faith in the gospel ; and since God who seeth the heart had
communicated to them the Holy Spirit, in the same manner
as to the believers from among the Jews, he had by this act
testified that in his eyes they were no longer impure, after he
had purified their hearts by faith in the Redeemer ; they were
now as pure as the believing Jews, and hence, in the commu
nication of spiritual gifts, God had made no difference between
them. How then could they venture to question the power
and grace of God, as if he could not without the law admit
the Gentiles to a participation of salvation in the kingdom of
God ? Why would they lay a yoke on believers, which neither
they nor their fathers had been able to bear 1 By " a yoke "
Peter certainly did not mean the outward observance of
ceremonies simply as such, for he himself still observed them,
and did not wish to persuade the Jewish Christians to re
nounce them. But he meant the outward observance of the
law, as far as it proceeded from its internal dominion over
the conscience, so as to make justification and salvation
dependent upon it ; whence arose the dread of putting their
salvation in jeopardy by the slightest deviation from it, and
that tormenting scrupulosity which invented a number of
limitations, in order, by such self-imposed restraint, to guard
against every possible transgression of the law. As Peter
understood the term in this sense, he could add, " But we also
by faith in Jesus as our Redeemer have been freed from the
1 The whole church was far too numerous, to allow of all its members
meeting for consultation ; but that they took a part in the deliberations,
appears inferrible from the words avv o\r] rp ^KK\ri<ria, Acts xv. 22.
The epistle to the Gentile Christians was written in the name not
merely of the elders of the church, but of all the Christian brethren.
Also the words irav rJ> ir\f}0or, Acts xv. 12, favour this interpretation.
2 Peter's words, d<*>' ^fQtav ag>xc"WJ'. are of some value for a chronolo
gical purpose, since they evidently show, that between the holding of
this assembly and the conversion of Cornelius, to eay the least, a tole
rable length of time must have elapsed.
118 SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY.
yoke of the law, since we are no longer bound to it as a
means of justification ; for we, as well as the Gentiles, believe
that we shall obtain salvation through the grace of our Lord
Jesus Christ."
These words of Peter made a deep impression on many, and
a general silence followed. After a while, Barnabas, who had
for years been highly esteemed by this church, rose, and then
Paul. In addition to the facts reported by Peter which testi
fied the operation of the Divine Spirit among the Gentiles,
they mentioned others from their own experience, and re
counted the miracles by which God had aided their labours.
When the minds of the assembly were thus prepared, James1
came forward, who, on account of his strict observance of the
law, was held in the greatest reverence by the Jews, and in
whose words, therefore, the greatest confidence would be
placed. He brought their deliberations to a close, by a pro
posal which corresponded to his own peculiar moderation and
mildness, and was adapted to compose the existing differences.
Referring to Peter's address, he said that this apostle had
shown how God had already received the Gentiles, in order to
form a people dedicated to his service. And this agreed with
the predictions of the prophets, who had foretold that in the
times when the decayed theocracy was to be gloriously re
vived, the worship of Jehovah would be extended also among
the Gentiles. Accordingly, what had recently occurred among
the Gentiles need not excite their astonishment. God who
effected all this, was now fulfilling his eternal counsel, as he
had promised by his prophets. Since, therefore, by this
eternal counsel of God, the Gentiles were to be incorporated
into his kingdom by the Messiah, let them not dare to do
anything which might obstruct or retard the progress of this
work. They ought not to lay any unnecessary burdens on
the converted Gentiles. They should enjoin nothing more
upon them than abstinence from meat offered to idols2 or of
1 The question -whether this was the son of Alphaeus, or another
person, must be left for future examination.
2 What remained of the flesh of animals used in sacrifice, was partly
used by those who presented the sacrifice at their own meals, (especially
if they were festive in honour of the gods,) and partly disposed of in the
market. The eating of what were called o'rra TQT was regarded by the
Jews with the greatest detestation. Pirke Avoth. ch. iii. § 3»
DEVELOPMENT OF THE GENTILE CHURCH. 119
animals strangled, from blood and from unchastity. ' But as
to believers from among the Jews, no such special injunctions
were needed for them. They already knew what they were
to practise as Jews ; for in every city where Jews resided, the
law of Moses was read on the Sabbath-days in the synar
gogues, Acts xv. 2 1.2 The concluding words were adapted
to pacify the Jews on account of freedom from the Mosaic
law allowed to the Gentile Christians.
The resolutions passed on this occasion had for their object,
to reduce by mutual approximation the opposition existing
between the Jewish and Gentile Christians. The observance
of these ordinances by the latter, would tend to lessen, and by
degrees to destroy, the aversion with which native Jews were
wont to regard as impure, men who had been brought up as
idolaters ; it might assist us in forming correct notions of
1 Most of these points belonged to the seven precepts, to the obser
vance of which men were bound before the giving of the Mosaic law,
which God gave to the sons of Noah, and to the observance of which
the Proselytes of the Gate bound themselves. Vid. Biixiorf, Lexicon
Tnlnuulicum et Rabbinicum, sub voce 13
2 It appears to me entirely impossible, so to understand the words in
.Acts xv. 21 (as they have been understood by the latest expositors,
Meyer and Olshausen), as containing a reason for what had been said
before. This assembly required no reason why they should impose so
much, but only why the}' should impose no more on the Gentile Chris
tians. Also from the form of the clauses in v. 19 and 20 if such a
reference existed, we should expect to find a reason of this kind, namely
for the M^? •nagfvoxte'iv. These words, too, taken in their obvious «ense,
cannot contain the positive reason for the issuing of these injunctions,
for that Moses was read in the synagogue every Sabbath-day, should
rather serve as a foundation of a requirement for the observance of the
whole law. But in verse 21, the emphasis is on the word Mwcrv)?, and in
that is concealed an antithesis to that which is given as the standing-
point for the converts from heathenism. But as to what concerns the
Jews, those who wish to observe the law, we need to say nothing new to
them, for they can hear every Sabbath in the synagogue what. Mosea
requires of them. It cannot be our intention, whi.e we prescribe no
more than this to the converts from heathenism, to diminish the reve
rence of the Jews for the Mosaic law. Chrysostom adopts very nearly
this interpretation, by following the natural connexion of the passage.
Horn. 33, § 2 : /cat 'iva. /XTJ TIS avdvTreveyicT), 8ian ju-/j "lo^Sa o»s TO au a
*iriffT(\ho[j.fv; tir-iryayf Ae-yau/ : and he explains the words \. 21, TOVT'
tern Mo-'crT/s avTols StaAryerat (rvi/ex^>s- !'• gives me pleasure to agree
with Dr. Sclmeekenburger in my view of this pa$>age; see his excellent
remarks, in his work before quoted, on the Acts, p. 23.
120 SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY.
their feelings to compare (though the cases are not exactly
parallel) the relation of the offspring of a nation where Chris
tianity has long been established to the newly converted
Christians from modern heathenism. But if the believing
Jews could not bring themselves to overcome their prejudices
against the believing Gentiles as uneircumcised, it would be so
much more difficult to bring such persons closer to them, if
they did not at all observe what was required of the usual
Proselytes, and renounce what from the Jewish standing-point
appeared closely connected with idolatry, and the impure life
of idolaters. And as these ordinances would serve on the
one hand to bring Gentile Christians nearer to Jewish Chris
tians ; so on the other hand, they might contribute to with
draw the former more from the usual heathenish mode ot
living, and guard them against the pollution of heathenish
intercourse and indulgences. The experience of the next
century teaches us, how even the misunderstanding, which
made out of these ordinances a positive law applicable to all
ages of the Church,1 might in this direction work for good.
Viewing the transaction in this light, it is indeed surprising
that to ordinances merely disciplinary, and intended for only
one particular period, and for persons under certain peculiar
relations, the command against unchastity binding in all agea,
1 In the first ages, Christians were distinguished by not venturing to
eat any of the things forbidden in this injunction. But when the early
undiscriminating opposition against heathenism had ceased, a more
correct view was taken, which Augustine has beautifully developed.
"(Apostoli) eligisse mihi videntur pro tempore rem facilem et nequa-
quam observantibus onerosam, in qua cum Israelitis etiam gentis prop-
tor augularem ilium lapidem duos in so condcntem aliquid comrnuniter
observarent. Transacto vero illo tempore, quo illi duo parietes, unus de
circurncisione, alter de prrcputio venientcs, quamvis in angulari lapid'e
concordarent, tamen suis quibusdam proprietatibus dislinctius emine-
bant, ac ubi ecclesia gentium talis effecta est, ut in ea nullus Israelite
carnalia appareat, quis jam hoc Christianas observat, ut turdas vel
minutiores aviculas non adtingat, nisi quarum sanguis effusus est, aat
leporem non edat, si manu a cervice percussus nullo cruento vulnc-ye
occieus est1? Et qui forte pauci tangere ista formidant a cseteris irri-
dentur, ita omnium animos in hae re tenuit sententia veritatis." Matt,
xv. 11. Auyustin. c. Faustum Manich. lib. xxxii. c. 13. The op
posite view, it is true, was maintained in the Greek Church, in which
the injunction of abstinence from blood and from animals strangled wa»
confirmed by the Second Trullanian Council, in the year 692.
DEVELOPMENT OP THE GENTILE CHURCH. l-l
and relating to an objectively moral point, should be annexed.
But the connexion in which this prohibition appears, furnishes
the best explanation of the cause and design of its introduc
tion. Uopi'tia is mentioned in connexion with the other points,
on account of'the close connexion in which it appeared to the
Jews to stand with idolatry ; for in the writings of the Old
Testament they were accustomed to see idolatry and un-
chastity everywhere placed together ; excesses of this class
were really connected with many parts of idolatry ; and tho
strict idea of chastity in a comprehensive sense formed the
standing-point of natural religion. It is introduced hero
not as a special moral precept of Christianity ; in that case, it
would not have been so insulated as a positive command, but
would rather have been deduced from its connexion with the
whole of the Christian faith and life as we find it in tho
Apostolic Epistles. Here it is introduced as a part of tho
ancient Jewish opposition to every thing which appeared con
nected with idolatry, and this opposition was now to be trans
ferred to the new Christian Church.
Although these injunctions had a precise object, and
doubtless attained it in some measure, yet we cannot conclude
with certainty, that James had a clear perception of it in all
its extent, when he proposed this middle way. As the persons
who composed this assembly acted not merely according to
the suggestions of human prudence, but chiefly as the organs
of a higher spirit that animated them, of a higher wisdom that
guided them, it would follow, that their injunctions served for
certain ends in the guidance of the church, which were not
perfectly clear to their own apprehension. Even James him
self docs not develop the motives which determined him to
propose such a measure. In this assembly there was no oc
casion, as we have before remarked, to mention the principles,
but merely to develop the reason, why no more than this, and
not the whole law. should be imposed on Christians ; and this
reason accordingly, he deduced from what he and tho other
apostles recognised as the central point of the Christian faith.
Possibly James, without any distinct views and aims, only
believed that something must be done for the Gentile Chris
tians, (who were to be acknowledged as members of God's
kingdom, with equal privileges, in virtue of their faith in
Jehovah and the Messiah,) to bring them nearer, as it regarded
122 BPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY.
their outward mode of life, like the Proselytes of the Gate/
to Judaism and the Jews. 2
But although it was not necessary in this public assembly, to
develop in a positive manner the motives for framing these
injunctions, we are certainly not to assume, that the apostles
left the decision of the principles on which they meant to act
towards Gentile Christians, to the deliberations of this meet
ing ; but as we have before remarked, most probably brought
forward only what seemed to them in their private conference
best adapted for their object ; in that consultation it was
necessary to discuss the motives for these injunctions, and the
objects which it was proposed to attain by them ; for in rela
tion to what Paul desired — that to those among the Gentiles,
who acknowledged Jesus as the Messiah, nothing further should
be prescribed — a conciliatory measure of this kind must have
been accompanied by a statement of the principles on which
it was founded. And as we must acknowledge in James the
power of the Christian spirit, that he subordinated to the in
terests of Christianity his attachment to Judaism and the
forms of the ancient theocracy ; so in Paul, who was so zealous
for the independence of Christianity and of the Gentile
churches, we must recognise a zeal tempered by Christian
1 I mean only analogous regulations; for tad there been simply a
transference of such as were enjoined to the Proselytes of the Gate, it
would have been sufficient to require of the Gentile Christians, among
•whom many Proselytes of the Gate might be found, that they should
submit to all the regulations which had hitherto been observed by per
sons of that class.
2 Luther, who was far from the restricted, unnatural notion of inspira
tion, and the slavish adherence to the letter, maintained by the theolo
gians of the 17th century, says, in reference to this proposal of James
(vol. iii. p. 1042 of Walch's edition), "that the Holy Spirit allowed St.
James to make a false step." But even if James had not before him the
higher object for the guidance of the church, this ought not to be called
a false step, in relation to the peculiar standing-point which he took in
the historical development of primitive Christianity ; for he was ap
pointed by the Lord of the church to occupy the intermediate standing-
point which was to connect the Old Testament with the independent
development of the New, and from which he presented the new spirit of
the gospel in the form of the Old Testament. It becomes us, when we
are considering the joint labours of the apostles, to observe attentively
the whole scheme of organic historical development, in which each
member takes his appropriate station, and all are designed to be com
plements to one another.
DEVELOPMENT OF THE GENTILE CHURCH. 123
wisdom, which yielded to a measure of accommodation deter
mined by circumstances.1
The resolutions adopted on this occasion were now com
municated to the Gentile churches in Syria and Cilicia,2 in
an epistle drawn up in the name of the assembly ; and two
persons of good repute in the church, perhaps members of
the Presbytery at Jerusalem, Barsabas and Silas (Silvanus),
were chosen as bearers of it, who were to accompany Paul
and Barnabas, and counterwork the intrigues of their Judaizing
opponents. We will here insert this short epistle, probably
dictated by James himself, and the earliest public document
of the Christian church known to us.3 It is as follows : " The
Apostles and Elders, and Brethren,4 send greeting to the
brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch, and Syria, and
1 Luther beautifully remarks, in the passage above quoted, " There
fore they agree that James should prescribe, and since their consciences
are left free and unfettered, that they think is enough for them ; they
were not so envious as to wish to quarrel about a little thing, provided
it could be done without damage."
2 The injunctions were designed, it is true, for all Gentile Christiana,
but the Epistle was addressed only to the churches specified in it, because
in these the dispute had first of all arisen, and because they must have
been respected, as parent churches among the Gentiles, with which the
later formed Asiatic churches Avould connect themselves. Hence also
Paul, in Gal. i. 21, as a general description of the sphere of his labours,
mentions only the KXi^ara. TTJS Zvpias xal TT)S KtAiKtas.
3 The style of this document (marked by simplicity and extreme
brevity) testifies its originality. Had the author of the Acts set him
self to compose such an epistle, and attempted to assume the situation
of the writer, it would have been a very different composition. And
hence we may draw a conclusion relative to the discourses given in the
Acts.
4 According to the reading adopted by Lachmann, it would be,
" The Apostles and Presbyters, Christian brethren," they wrote as bre
thren to brethren. This reading is strongly supported. We can
hardly deduce its origin from hierarchical influences, which would have
excluded the church from such consultations and decisions ; its anti
quity is too great, for we find it in Irenaeus, iii. 12, 14. It is also equally
against the hierarchical spirit for the apostles and presbyters to write
to the brethren as brethren. And it may be easily explained, how
it happened that since, from the introductory words of Luke, they
expected an epistle from the whole church, it seemed necessary to dis
tinguish the brethren from the apostles and presbyters, and hence pro
bably the words KO\ ol were inserted. Yet since, in Acts xv. 22,
the whole church iu mentioned in connexion with the apostles and
presbyters, we might expect in the epistle itself a distinct reference to
the church ; the «'£ ywv also of verse 24 (for these anonymous com-
124 SPREAD OF CHRISTIANITY.
Cilicia.1 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which
went out from us, have troubled you with words, saying ye
must be circumcised, and keep the law, to whom we gave no
such commandment : it seemed good unto us being assembled
together,2 to send chosen men unto you, with our beloved Bar
nabas and Paul, — men that have hazarded their lives for the
name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas
and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.3
For it seemed good to us, under the guidance of the Holy
Spirit,4 to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary
things — that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from
blood, and from things strangled, and from unchastity ; from
plainers could hardly belong to the presbyters of the church) appears to
assume this. The first Kal of, verse 24, must have occasioned the
omission of the second.
1 The xaipe«> here wants the & Kvplw, which is so common in the
Pauline Epistles; but it deserves notice that, as a salutation only, this
Xaipfiv is found in the Epistle of James.
2 The words yevo^vois o^o0ujua8b?', I do not understand -with Meyer,
" being unanimous," but, " when we were met together ; " as 6fj.o6v^tt-
Sbv often denotes in the Acts, not, " of one mind," but, " together," as
in v. 46. We may see from the Alexandrian version, and Josephus
(Antiq. xix. 9, § 1), how the change of meaning has been formed.
3 The explanation of this passage, Acts xv. 27, is in every way dif
ficult. If we refer ra aura to what goes before, the sense will be, — they
will announce to you the same things that Barnabas and Paul have
announced to you. So I understood the words in the first edition of this
work. The words Sia \6yov are not exactly against this interpretation :
for though these words contained the reference to Avhat followed in
writing, they might be thus connected with them ; namely, as we now
in writing also express the same principles. But since mention is not
made before of the preaching of Barnabas and Paul, and we must there
fore supply something not before indicated, and gince the words Sib
\6yov contain a reference to what follows, and therefore not Karayye\\fiv,
but air ay y eAAeiz/ is here used, I now prefer the other interpretation, al
though in this case likewise, it is difficult to supply what is necessary.
In Irenoeus we find a reading which presents the sense required by the?
connexion in a way that removes all difficulties, but must be considered
as an exposition ; rty yv^^v JIIJL&V, instead of ra avra, annuntiantes
nostram sententiam. Iren. iii. 32, 14.
4 In the explanation also of Acts xv. 28, I depart, and with greater
confidence, from my former view. Agreeably to the manner in wliicls.
SoKeiv is every where placed with the' dative of the person as the subject, I
cannot help so understanding it with the words T£ ayitp Trvev^an, espe
cially since if it meant, by the Holy Spirit, according to the New Testa
ment idiom, we should expect *v to be prefixed. It is therefore stated first,
it has so pleased the Holy Spirit— then, we as his organs have resolved.
Although the affair was determined according to both, it was important
DEVELOPMENT OF THE GENTILE CHURCH. 125
\vhich if ye keep yourselves,1 ye shall do well. Faro ye
well."
We may conclude from this epistle, that those who had
raised the controversy in the Antiochian church, had appealed
to the authority of the apostles and presbytery. Perhaps
they represented themselves as delegates of the church at
.Jerusalem, — as this was afterwards made of importance by
the adversaries of Paul — but they were not acknowledged as
such. We see how important it was for the apostles to
accredit Paul and Barnabas as faithful preachers of the gospel,
and to give a public testimony to their agreement in spirit
with them. Yet we cannot help remarking the brevity of the
epistle — the want of a pouring forth of the heart towards the
new Christians of an entirely different race — the absence ot
the development of the views on which the resolutions passed
were founded. The epistle was without doubt dictated in
haste, and must be taken only for an official document, as the
credentials of an oral communication. But they depended
more on the living word, than on written characters. Hence,
while the written communication was so brief, they sent living
organs to Antioch, who would explain every thing more fully
according to the sense of this meeting.
Thus Paid and Barnabas, having happily attained their
object at Jerusalem, returned to the Gentile Christians at
Antioch with these pledges of Christian fellowship, and
accompanied by the two delegates. Barnabas took also his
nephew Mark with him from Jerusalem, to be an assistant in
the common work. He had formerly accompanied them on
their first missionary travels in Asia, but had not remained
faithful to lis vocation ; giving way to his feelings of attach
ment for his native country, he hart left them when they
entered Pamphylia. At Jerusalem, Barnabas met with him
again, and perhaps by his remonstrances, brought him to
a sense of his former misconduct, so that he once more joined
them.
This decision of the Apostolic Assembly at Jerusalem,
to mention first, that this resolution was not formed according to human
caprice, but that the Holy Spirit so \villcd it. 1 translate in the text,
not verbally, but according to the sense.
1 The expression in Acts xv. 29, t£ &v Swnpovvres lavrovt/li remark
ably similar to that in James i. 27, bv-xiKov tavrbv TTj/mv dirk TOW
126
SPREAD OP CHRISTIANITY.
forms an important era in the history of the apostolic church.
The first controversy which appeared in the history of Chris
tianity was thus publicly expressed and presented without
disguise ; but it was at the same time manifested, that, by
this controversy, the unity of the church was not to be
destroyed. Although so great and striking a difference of an-
outward kind existed in the development of the church among
the Jews and of that among the Gentiles, still the essential
unity of the church, as grounded on real communion of in
ternal faith and life, continued undisturbed thereby, and thus
it was manifest that the unity was independent of such out
ward differences : it became henceforth a settled point, that
though one party observed and the other party neglected cer
tain outward usages, yet both, in virtue of their common faith
in Jesus as the Redeemer, had received the Holy Spirit as the
certain mark of their participating in the kingdom of God.
The controversy was not confined to these outward differences ;
but, as we might conclude from the peculiar nature of the
modes of thinking among the Jews, which mingled itself with
their conceptions of Christianity, it involved several doctrinal
differences. The latter, however, were not brought under dis
cussion ; those points only were touched which were most
palpable, and appeared the most important from the Jewish
standing-pcint of legal observances. While they firmly held
one ground of faith, — faith in Jesus as the Messiah, and a
consciousness of fellowship in the one spirit proceeding from
him, — they either lost sight altogether of these differences, or
viewed them as very subordinate, in relation to the points of
agreement, the foundation of the all-comprehending kingdom
of God. At a later period these differences broke out with
greater violence, when they were not overpowered by the
energy of a Christian spirit progressively developed, and in
sinuating itself more deeply into the prevalent modes of
thinking. Even by this wise settlement of the question, so
serious a breach could not be repaired, where the operation of
that Spirit was wanting from whom this settlement proceeded.
As those who were addicted to Pharisaism were, from the first,
accustomed to esteem a Christianity amalgamated with com
plete Judaism, as alone genuine and perfect, and rendering
men capable of enjoying all the privileges of the kingdom of
God, it was hardly possible that these decisions could produce
DEVELOPMENT OP THE GENTILE CHURCH. 127
an entire revolution in their mode of thinking ; whether it
was that they looked upon the decisions of the assembly at
Jerusalem as not permanent, or that they explained them
according to their own views and interests, as if indeed, though
they had not commanded the observance of the law to Gentile
Christians, they were designed to intimate that it would be to
their advantage, if voluntarily, and out of love to Jehovah,
they observed the whole law. And as they had not hesitated,
before that assembly was called at Jerusalem, to appeal to the
authority of the apostles, although they were by no means
authorized to do so, they again attempted to make use of this
expedient, of which they could more readily avail themselves
on account of the great distance of most of the Gentilo
churches from Jerusalem.1
Thus we have here the first example of an accommodation
of differences which arose in the development of the church,
an attempt to effect a union of two contending parties ; and
we here see what has been often repeated, that union can only
be attained where it proceeds from an internal unity of Chris
tian consciousness ; but where the reconciliation is only
external, the deeply-seated differences, though for a brief
period repressed, will soon break out afresh. But what is of
the greatest importance, wo here behold the seal of true Catho
licism publicly exhibited by the apostles, and the genuine
apostolic church. The existence of the genuine catholic
church, which so deeply-seated a division threatened to
destroy, was thereby secured.
We are now arrived at a point of time in which the Gentilo
church assumed a peculiar and independent form ; but before
1 The Acts of the Apostles might lead us to suppose, if we could not
compare its statements with the Pauline Epistles, that the division
between the Jewish and Gentile Christians had been completely healed
by the decision of the apostolic assembly ; but we know that the reac
tion of the Judaizing party against the freedom of the Gentile Christian
church, very soon broke out afresh, and that Paul had constantly to
combat with it. In this silence of the Acts, I cannot find the slightest
trace of an a pologetical tendency for Paul against the Judaizers; in that
case, I should rather have expected the Author would have mentioned
these subsequent disturbances, and have opposed to them these decisions.
Nor can I think an intentional silence probable in relation to the events
of a period so deeply agitated by religious concerns. The Acts generally
says nothing of the inward development of the Christian church ; hence
it is silent on so many other things which we would gladly know.
128 ... CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH.
we trace its further spread and development in connexion with
the labours of Paul, let us first glance at the constitution of
the church in this new form of Christian fellowship.
CHAPTER V.
THE CONSTITUTION OP THK CHURCH, AND THE ECCLESIASTICAL USAGES OP
THE GENTILE CHRISTIANS.
THE forms under which the constitution of the Christian
community at first developed itself, were, as we have before
remarked, most nearly resembling those which already existed
in the Jewish church. But these forms, after their adoption
by Jewish Christians, would not have been transferred to
the Gentile churches, if they had not so closely corresponded
to the nature of the Christian community as to furnish it
with a model for its organization. This peculiar nature of
the Christian community distinguished the Christian church
from all other religious associations, and after Christianity had
burst the fetters of Judaism, showed itself among the free and
self-subsistent churches of the Gentile Christians. Since
Christ satisfied once for all that religious want, from the sense
of which a priesthood has every where originated, — since he
satisfied the sense of the need of mediation and reconciliation,
so deeply seated in the consciousness of the separation from
God by sin, there was no longer room or necessity for any
other mediation. If, in the apostolic epistles, the Old Testa
ment ideas of a priesthood, a priestly cultus and sacrifices are
applied to the new economy, it is only with the design of
showing, that, since Christ has for ever accomplished that
which the priesthood and sacrifices in the Old Testament pre
figured, — all who now appropriate by faith what he effected
for mankind, stand in the same relation with one another to
God, without needing any other mediation, — that they are all
by communion with Christ dedicated and consecrated to God,
and are called to present their whole lives to God as an
acceptable, spiritual thank-offering, and thus their whole con-
USAGES OP THE GENTILE CHRISTIANS. 120
secrated activity is a true spiritual, priestly cultus, Christians
forming a divine kingdom of priests. Kom. xii. 1 ; 1 Pet. ii. 9.
This idea of the general priesthood of all Christians, proceed-
in^ from the consciousness of redemption, and grounded alone
in°that, is partly stated and developed in express terms, and
partly presupposed in the epithets, images, and comparisons,
applied to the Christian life.
As all believers were conscious of an equal relation to
Christ as their Redeemer, and of a common participation of
communion with God obtained through him ; so on this con
sciousness, an equal relation of believers to one another was
grounded, which utterly precluded any relation like that found
in other forms of religion, subsisting between a priestly caste
and a people of whom they were the mediators and spiritual
guides. The apostles themselves were very far from placing
themselves in a relation to believers which bore any resemblance
to a mediating priesthood ; in this respect they always placed
themselves on a footing of equality. If Paul assured the
church of his intercessory prayers for them, he in return
requested their prayers for himself. There were accordingly
no such persons in the Christian church, who, like the priests
of antiquity, claimed the possession of an esoteric doctrine,
while they kept the people in a state of spiritual pupillage and
dependence on themselves, as their sole guides and instructors
in religious matters. Such a relation would have been incon
sistent with the consciousness of an equal dependence on Christ,
and an equal relation to him as participating in the same
spiritual life. The first Pentecost had given evidence that a
consciousness of the higher life proceeding from communion
with Christ filled all believers, and similar effects were pro
duced at every season of Christian awakening which preceded
the formation of a church. The apostle Paul, in the 4th
chapter of his Epistle to the Galatians, points out as a common
feature of Judaism and Heathenism in this respect, the con
dition of pupillage, of bondage to outward ordinances. He
represents this bondage and pupillage as taken away by the
consciousness of redemption, and that the same spirit ought
to be in all Christians. He contrasts the heathen, who blindly
followed their priests, and gave themselves up to all their arts
of deception, with true Christians, who, by faith in the
Redeemer, became the organs of the Divine Spirit, and could
VOL. i. K
130 CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH.
hear the voice of the living God within them ; 1 Cor. xii. 1.
He thought that he should assume too much to himself, if, in
relation to a church already grounded in spiritual things, he
represented himself only as giving ; for in this respect there
was only one general giver, the Saviour himself, as the source
of all life in the church, while all others, as members of the
spiritual body animated by him the Head, stood to each other
in the mutual relation of givers and receivers. Hence it was, that
after he had written to the Romans that he longed to come to
them in order to impart some spiritual gift for their establish
ment, he added, lest he should seem to arrogate too much to
himself, " that is, that I may be comforted, together with you,
by the mutual faith both of you and me;" Rom. i. 12.
Christianity, on the one hand, by the Holy Spirit as the
common higher principle of life, gave to the church a unity,
more sublime than any other principle of union among men,
destined to subordinate to itself, and in this subordination to
level, all the varieties founded in the development of human
nature. But, on the other hand, mental peculiarities were
not annihilated by this divine life j since, in all cases, it fol
lowed the laws of the natural development of man, but only
purified, sanctified, and transformed them, and promoted their
freer and more complete expansion. The higher unity of life
exhibited itself in a multiplicity of individualities, animated
by the same spirit, and forming reciprocal complements to
each other as parts of one vast whole in the kingdom of God.
Consequently, the manner in which this divine life manifested
its efficiency in each, was determined by the previous mental
individuality of each. The apostle Paul says, indeed, "But
all these worketh that one and self-same Spirit, dividing to
every man severally as he will," 1 Cor. xii. 1 1 ; but it by no
means follows, that he supposes an operation of the Divine
Spirit totally unconditional. In this passage, he is simply
opposing an arbitrary human valuation, which would attri
bute a worth to only certain gifts of grace, and refused to
acknowledge the manifoldness in their distribution. The
analogy to the members of the human body, of which the
apostle avails himself, betokens the not arbitrary but regu
lated development of the new creation in a sanctified natural
order ; for it is evident from this analogy, that as, among the
members of the human body, each has its determinate place
USAGES OF THE GENTILE CUIUSTIANS. 131
assigned by nature, and its appropriate function, so also the
divine life, in its development, follows a similar law, grounded
on the natural relations of the individualities animated by it.
From what has just been said, we are prepared for rightly
understanding the idea of charisma, so very important for the
history of the development of the Christian life, and of the
constitution of the Christian church in the first ages. In the
apostolic age, it denoted nothing else than the predominant
capability of an individual in which the power and operation
of the Holy Spirit that animated him was revealed ;l whethci
this capability appeared as something communicated in an
immediate manner by the Holy Spirit, or whether it was
already existing in the individual before his conversion, which,
animated, sanctified, and raised by the new principle of life,
would contribute to one common and supreme object, the
inward and outward development of the kingdom of God, or
the church of Christ. 2 That which is the soul of the whole
Christian's life, and forms its inward unity, the faith working
by love, can never appear as a particular charism ; for as this
it is which forms the essence of the whole Christian dispo
sition, so it is this which must govern all the particular
Christian capabilities ; and it is because they are all regulated
by this common principle of the Christian disposition, that
the particular capabilities become charisms ; 1 Cor. xiii.
That by which the developed natural endowment becomes
a charism, and which is common to all, is always something-
elevated above the common course of nature, something
divine. But the forms of manifestation in which this higher
principle exhibited itself, were marked by a diversity,
according as it was the result of an original creative operation
of the Holy Spirit, making use of the course of nature, and
1 The <pa.vf{Maffis TOW irvfv/j.aros peculiar to each person.
'-' The word most generally used, whereby (since Paul has u?ed it in
this sense) is signified, all that concerns the internal advancement of
the kingdom of God — whether in reference to the church in general, or
to individuals — is o<Ko5oju.6?i/. This use of the word arises from the
practice of comparing the Christian life of the whou church, and its
individual members, to a building, a temple of God which is built on
the foundation on which this building necessarily rests. 1 Cor. iii. 9,
10, and is in a state of continual progress towards completion. On
this progressive building of the temple of God, both in general and
individually, see the admirable remarks in Nitzch's Observations ad
Theologiam practicam felicius excolcndam. Bonn, 1831, p. 24.
132 CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH.
evincing its presence by some immediate effect, (though even
here a hidden connexion might exist between the natural
peculiarities of the individual and such a special acting of the
Holy Spirit) ; these are charisms which, in the New Testa
ment, are called dwa/jieiQ, aiipeia, rtpara ; or the manifesta
tions might be deduced from the development of natural
talents under the animating influence of the Holy Spirit.
The first kind of charisms belong more to the peculiar opera
tion of the Holy Spirit in the apostolic age, that peculiarly
creative epoch of Christianity on its first appearance in the
world ; the second kind belonged to the operation of the
Holy Spirit through all succeeding ages of the church, by
which human nature, in its essential qualities and its whole
course of development, will be progressively penetrated and
transformed. These two forms of charism admit therefore of
being clearly distinguished, as they were manifested in the
apostolic church. The gifts by which such effects were pro
duced in the visible world, which could not proceed from the
existing powers and laws of nature, the gift of Swa^eis, and
one still more definite, that of curing diseases, the ^apuT^a
m/mrwr, are mentioned as special gifts ; 1 Cor. xii. 9, 10.
Yet these gifts are only ranked with others ; we find no divi
sion of gifts into two classes, extraordinary and ordinary,
supernatural and natural ; for we contemplate the apostolic
church from the right point of view, only when we consider
the essential in all these gifts to be the supernatural principle,
the divine element of life itself.
The charisms which appeared in the apostolic church, may
be most naturally divided into such as relate to the further
ance of the kingdom of God or the edification of the church
by the word, and such as relate to the furtherance of the
kingdom of God by other kinds of outward1 agency. As to
the first class, a distinction may be made, founded 011 the
relation in which the mental self-activity developed in the
various powers of the soul and their performances bears to
the inworking of the Holy Spirit : in proportion as the imme
diate force of inspiration predominated in the higher self-
consciousness (the VOVQ or irvivpa)) and the lower self-con
sciousness (the il/vx')); th° medium of the soul's intercourse
with the outward world, retired : or as the communications
ft %
1 Compare 1 Pet. iv. 11.
USAGES OF THE GENTILE CHRISTIANS. 133
of the Divine Spirit were received during the harmonious
co-operation of all the powers of the soul, and developed and
applied by the sober exercise of the understanding. ' Hence
the gradations in the charisras of which we have already
spoken, the charism of yX(J<7<rutc \a\eiv, of Trpotyrjrevtii',
and of ^tSaoxaXm. Men who were prepared by the early
cultivation of the intellect, and the aptitude for mental com
munication by means of it, hence knew how to develop and
communicate in logical consecutiveness what the illumination
of the Divine Spirit revealed to their higher self-consciousness.
The StSdiTKaXoi are therefore teachers possessed of Christian
knowledge (yvtuo-ig), who had gained it by means of self-activitv
animated by the Holy Spirit, through the development and c;&?,t j ? ,•
elaboration of truth known in the divine light. The prophet, A
on the contrary, spoke, as he was carried away by the power
of inspiration suddenly seizing him, an instantaneous elevation
of his higher self-consciousness, according to a light that then
gleamed upon him, (an aVoraXu^tc.) The prophet might be
distinguished from the SickWaXoe in reference to his mental
peculiarity and formation, by the predominance, in general,
of the feelings and intuitive perceptions over the activity of
the understanding. Yet the two charisms were not always
found separate in different persons. The choaWaXoc in many
a moment of inspiration might become a TTPO^TTJQ. The pro
phet might pronounce, under the influence of inspiration, some
impressive address, to awaken, to admonish, to warn, or to
console the assembled believers ; or make appeals to those
who were not yet decided in the faith, by which he alarmed
their consciences, and thus opened their hearts for the instruc
tions of the SiMffMiXoQ. It is evident what influence the power
of inspired discourse operating on the heart must have had
for the spread of the gospel during this period. Persons who
wished for once to inform themselves respecting what occurred
in Christian assemblies, or to become acquainted with the
Christian doctrine, of whose divine origin they were not yet
convinced, sometimes came into the assemblies of the Church. *
1 We can here make use of what Synesius in his Dion says of the rela
tion of the )8aKxe<a» of the a\/j.a ^aviKbv^ of the Qfo^ogTjrof, to the forma
tion Of the ^€(TTJ /Cttt tiriCTTaTlK^ SvVCtfUS.
2 The &r«rToy, 1 Cor. xiv. 24, means a person not yet a believer, but
yet not unsusceptible of faith, the Infidelis negative. Such a one might
134 CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH.
On these occasions, Christian men came forward who testified
of the corruption of human nature, and of the universal need
be awakened to believe by the Trgo^Teia, The &TTKTTOS, 1 Cor. xiv. 22, is an
obstinate unbeliever, wholly unsusceptible of faith, and hence utterly un
susceptible of the influence of the Trgo^T/reia, an infidelis privative. For
such persons there could be no awakening, but only condemnatory (rTj/ma.
1 am not induced by what Meyer has said, in his Commentary on the
First Epistle to the Corinthians, to give up this interpretation. The con
nexion makes it absolutely necessary, to give a different meaning to
&TTL(TTos in 1 Cor. xiv. 23 and 24, from what it bears in v. 22, and the
collocation of iSiwrai and ^THO-TO: confirms this explanation. The ISiuTai
were those who knew only a little of Christianity, the ^no-rot those who
had not yet attained to faith, and as not believing, were akin to the class
mentioned in v. 22, but distinguished from them by the direction of
their disposition, and its relation to believing, inasmuch as they were
not in the position of decided enmity to Christianity. The fact of their
attending Christian assemblies, bore evidence of their seeking after
truth, that there was at least the germ of susceptibility. A person of
this class came to the Christian assemblies, in order to learn, whether it
was really a matter worth attending to, "accensus inquirere quid sit in
causa," as Tertullian says. The train of thought is as follows : v. 21,
God speaks by people using a strange language (the revelation of his
judgment) to the Jews, who would not listen to the prophets speaking
to them in their own language ; v. 22, Thus the unintelligible tongues
are for signs (signs of merited divine judgments, condemnatory sign?)
not for believers, (which idea is amplified in verses 23, 24, in order to be
applied to those who are susceptible of faith, whose minds are somewhat
moved to believe,) but for unbelievers (by which is here indicated what
is absolutely contrary to believing — the standing-point of those who have
obstinately rejected the opportunities of attaining faith). But prophecy
is not for the unbelieving (in consequence of the contrariety of their dis
position), but for believers. This general position, that not the gift of
unintelligible tongues, but prophecy speaking intelligibly to them, was
designed for such, the apostle lays down in v. 23, as an inference from.
what he had said before. Bat instead of taking an example from those
who already belonged to the church as decided believers, he takes the
example of such who were in their progress towards believing ; since in
these the truth of what they had asserted was more strikingly evident,
and show how many such persons might be won by prophecy, while on
the contrary, the sight of an assembly in which they heard nothing but
ecstatic unintelligible discourses must operate injuriously upon them ;
in the latter case, they would feel themselves compelled to suppose that
there was nothing in Christianity but delusion and enthusiasm. But if
the same unbelievers were intended in verse 23 as in verse 22, then for
such even the discourses of the prophets would be nothing that could
profit them, since there was no point of connexion in their dispositions.
To them even what they heard spoken by the prophets would appear
nothing but enthusiasm. It would be a punishment merited by them,
to be addressed in unintelligible language, since they would not under
stand — they should not understand.
USAGES OF THE GENTILE CHRISTIANS. 135
of redemption, with overpowering energy ; and, from their
own religions and moral consciousness, appealed to that of
others, as if they could read it. The heathen felt his con
science struck, his heart was laid open, and he was forced to
acknowledge, what hitherto he had not been willing to believe,
that the power of God was with this doctrine and dwelt among
these men ; 1 Cor. xiv. 25. If the connected addresses of the
<)t()a'<mtXoe tended to lead those further into a knowledge of
the gospel who had already attained to faith, or to develop in
their minds the clear understanding of what they had received
by faith ; the rrpo^reia served rather to awaken those to faith
who were not yet believers, or to animate and strengthen
those who had attained to faith, to quicken afresh the life of
faith. On the contrary, in the yXaWate \a\e~u>, the elevated
consciousness of God predominated, while the consciousness of
the external world vanished. To a person who expressed
himself in this manner, the medium of communication between
the external world and his deeply moved interior, was alto
gether wanting. What he uttered in this state when carried
away by his feelings and intuitions, was not a connected
address like that of a di3a<r«;a\or, nor was it an exhortation
suited to the circumstances of other persons (irapajtXqartc), liko
that of the prophets ; but without being capable in this situa
tion of taking notice of the mental state and necessities of.
others, he was occupied solely with the relation of his own
heart to God. His soul was absorbed in devotion and adora
tion. Hence prayer, singing the praises of God. testifying of
the mighty acts of God, were suited to this state. * Such a
person prayed in the Spirit ; the higher life of the mind and
disposition predominated, but the intelligent development was
wanting. J Since he formed a peculiar language for himself,
1 As various kinds of religious acts might proceed from this state of
mind, (as for instance irgoireux6^** and \J/aAA.eir,) the plural 7\&)<rcrai and
the phrase 7^17 'y \taaauv arc used.
2 At all events it is certain that in 1 Cor. xiv. 14, wevfian Trgv<Tfvx((rOai,
;f/aA\et.v, is equally with 7X^0- 0-77 Aa\eTi', opposed to TV vot or 5ia rov vobs
\a\f~iu, and it is certain that the latter means — to deliver something
through the medium of thinking, in a form proceeding from a sound
consciousness. But it may he disputed—which yet decides nothing
respecting the subject as a whole— whether wev/j-a in this whole section
is a designation of the ecstatic state, a* one in which the excitation pro
duced by the Divine Spirit, the immediate action of inspiration predomi-
136 CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH.
from his own individual feelings and intuitions, he was defi
cient in the ability to express himself so as to be understood
by the majority. Had the apostle Paul held the yXoWcuc
\a\e~tv to be something quite enthusiastic and morbid, neither
advantageous for the Christian life of the individual nor for
the furtherance of the Christian life in others, he certainly (so
liberally as he always acknowledged what was good in the
churches to whom he wrote before he blamed what was evil)
would never have allowed himself to designate by the name of
a charism, an imperfection in the Christian life, and never
could he, in this case, have said of himself that he thanked God
that he spake in more tongues than all of them. On the con
trary, from the view here developed of this charism, it is
nates, and the human self-activity is repressed ; or whether by this name
denotes a peculiar internal power of human nature, the power of higher
intuition, which in such states alone is developed and active. Verse*
15 and 16 would favour and justify no other interpretation than the
former. But according to verse 14, though this interpretation is not
impossible, there are some difficulties ; for here by the irvfv^a must be
denoted the inspiration effected by the Spirit, as something dwelling in
the soul, and blended with the subjective. Instead of saying, I pray in
inspiration, Paul would say, My spirit (that in me which is one with
the Spirit acting within me) prays. It cannot be denied that this in
terpretation has something harsh, Avhich is not found in the second, if
by irveiifj-a we understand that highest power of the soul, which in those
highest moments of the inner life, is active as the organ for the in
fluences of the Divine Spirit. It cannot at least be decisive against this
interpretation, that Paul in his Epistle to the Romans generally desig
nates the higher spiritual nature of man by the term i/oDs; for this need
not prevent his applying the same name to a more limited idea in ano
ther connexion; the vovs = ro voouv, the discursive faculty of thought,
in distinction from the higher faculty of intuition, which is more recep
tive, by surrendering itself to the Divine Spirit. It is worthy of remark,
and assists in forming a right judgment of the various charisms in rela
tion to Christianity, that in the sense assigned to the yKuffaais Aa\en/,
we may find something analogous in the fiavia, the ej/flouaiatr^ubs of the
heathen VL&VTIS ; on the contrary, in the 8j5a<ncaA.ia is presented a cha
racteristic of Christianity, the religion of sober-mindedness; as Chris
tianity is the religion of freedom of mental self-activity, (in opposition
to mere passivity,) and of harmonious mental development. Hence also
the danger that: — when a one-sided over-valuation of the y\<affffais Aa\€?i>
gained ground, and there was a defect in Christian watchfulness and
sobriety, as in heathenism, the excitement of mere natural feeling
might injuriously mingle itself with the movements of the divine life —
as was the case in Montanism, in which we may observe appearances
akin to somnambulism.
USAGES OF THE GENTILE CHRISTIANS. 137
evident that, in this extraordinary elevation of mind, he recog
nised an operation of the Divine Spirit, a special gift of grace ;
and there is also an internal probability that that apostle, who
rose to the highest point of the interior Christian life, who
could depose to having received so many owraffUu and
a7roKaXvi//ete Kvplov, who had heard things unutterable in any
tongue of men — had often been in circumstances correspond
ing to the yXw<7<ratc XaXeTf. But it was consonant with that
wisdom which always took account of the interests of all
classes in the church, that he — although he recognised the
value of these temporary elevations for the whole of the Chris
tian life, by which it was enabled to take a wider range — left
the manifestations of such moments to the private devotions
of each individual, and banished them from meetings for
general edification ; that he valued more highly those spiritual
gifts, which gave scope for the harmonious cooperation of all
the powers of the soul, and contributed in the spirit of love to
the general edification ; and that he dreaded the danger of
self-deception and enthusiasm, where the extraordinary mani
festations of the Christian life were overvalued, and where that
— which only was of worth when it arose unsought from the
interior development of life, — became an object of anxious
pursuit to many who were thus brought into a state of morbid
excitement. Hence he wished, that in those highest moments
of inspiration which attended the yXoWcuc XaXetr, every one
would pour out his heart alone before God ; but that in the
assemblies of the church these manifestations of devotion, un
intelligible to the majority, might be repressed ; or only be
exhibited, when what was thus spoken could be translated into-
a language intelligible to all.
In these charisma we may also distinguish the gift of a pro
ductiveness of religious intuition excited and animated by
the Divine Spirit ; and the gift which enabled a person to-
explain or to pass judgment upon what others communicated
by means of their charism in the state of higher inspiration,
the faculty of interpreting or of judging, animated by the
Divine Spirit, the epjjTjvf ta yXwo-o-atc and the hak-picrtQ irvtv-
fjLurun'. The Christian life was permitted freely to develop
and express itself in the church. Whoever felt an inward
impulse, might venture to speak in the Christian assemblies :
but sound discretion ought to accompany inspiration, and
CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH.
might be considered as a mark of its being genuine. No
one was to wish to be the sole speaker ; or to interrupt others
in speaking ; 1 Cor. xiv. 30, 31. If Paul considered such
injunctions to be necessary, it is apparent that he by no
means recognised in the prophets of the church, pure organs
of the Divine Spirit, in whom the divine and the human
might not easily be confounded. On the contrary, the
churches were to be guarded against the excesses of such,
a mixture and the delusions which prevailed, when human
impurity was looked upon as a suggestion of the Divine
Spirit,— by exercising a trial of spirits, for which a special
gift was granted to individuals. As for the 3t3(WaXoe, in
whom the reflective activity of the understanding pre
dominated, the gift of trying spirits was not required so
much to accompany his addresses ; for since in him the
critical power was developed and active, and he was habituated
to discuss Christian truths with a sober judgment, he was
able to judge himself. But the less a prophet in the moments
of inspiration was able to observe, to examine, and to judge
himself, the greater was the danger of confounding the divine
and the human, and so much the more necessary was it, in
order to prevent this, for others to apply a scrutiny. On
this account, it was ordered that the operations of the pro
phetical gift were attended by an extraordinary endowment
in certain persons of trying the spirits, a critical power
animated by the Holy Spirit. The design of this gift was
certainly not merely to decide who was a prophet and who
was not; but chiefly for the purpose of distinguishing in
the addresses of those who stood up as inspired speakers in
the Christian assemblies, between what proceeded from
the Divine Spirit, and what did not proceed from that
source ; so Paul, on this point, recommended the church
to try every thing communicated by the prophets, and
required them to separate the good from the bad;
1 Thess. v. 21. And as the prophets did not pretend to be
infallible, but were conscious of their liability to error, they
submitted themselves to the judgment of the church, or of
their organs appointed for the purpose, and thus were pre
served from the self-delusion of pride, that fruitful source of
•enthusiasm.
In the charism of £i£a0v;a\m, there appears again to have
USAGES OF THE GENTILE CHRISTIANS.
boen a difference, according as any one had an ability for
developing the truth in its theoretic elements, or in its appli
cation to the various relations of life ; the one was Xoyoc
yvojvfuc, the other Xoyoe <ro0t'..c.1
But though the terms yvutnc, and <ro0<a are thus dis
tinguished ; it by no means follows, that, in every passage
where aotyia is mentioned in reference to Christianity, it is
used in the same restricted sense, and always with a refer
ence to this distinction. We find both used as synonymous,
certainly without any implied reference to such a distinction
of practical and theoretical ; Coloss. ii. 3. Thus Paul in^tho
first Epistle to the Corinthians, under the name of a Xoyoc
o-00/oc, describes the more ample development of Christian
truth, in relation to the first elements of Christian know
ledge, the common foundation of Christian consciousness in
all believers, and in contrast with the philosophy of the
Grecian schools. He knew nothing higher than the doctrine
of Jesus Christ the Crucified as the foundation of salvation,
and whatever pretended to be superior to this, appeared to
him a mere deception. He says, that in the publication of^
the divine counsels respecting the salvation brought by.
Christ to mankind, all the treasures of wisdom and know- •
ledo-e were hidden ; Coloss. ii. 3 ; but still the agency of
reason enlightened by the Holy Spirit, was necessary to
bring these hidden treasures to light, to educe and develop
this "divine philosophy. Consequently, there would be various
degrees of knowledge to be developed, and various cor-
1 y.oQla principally denoted a practical power of the judgment, cor-
re^ponding to the idea of wisdom or prudence; while yvutris, m the
New Testament and contemporary writings, was used for the theore
tical, the more profound knowledge of religion; compare 1 Cor. xin. 2.
When Meyer says that the distinction between theoretical and practical
does not correspond to the nature of inspired discourse, it appears to
me that this objection is not valid : for inspiration in that universal
sensa which is here treated of, the animating by the Divine Spirit,
from whom all charisnis proceed, could not be wanting to any kind ot
discourse in the church. But yet a different gift resulting from anima
tion by the common higher principle of life, would be required, when a
person delivered a discourse on the peculiar doctrines of the faith, and
when he spoke of objects that called for the exercise of Christian
prudence on the collisions between Christianity and the existing social
relations, and matters relating to the outward guidance of the church.
The difference is here necessarily grounded in the nature of the object,
and of the human mind.
140 CONSTITUTION OP THE CHURCH.
responding kinds of instruction. Paul indeed speaks of a
wisdom which he could deliver only among " them that are
perfect j" 1 Cor. ii. 6 ;x but by that wisdom, he did not
mean giving new explanations respecting the divine wisdom
to be added from without, something distinct from the gospel
as universally announced, a tradition that was to be divulged
in a smaller circle of disciples. But he meant the unfolding
those treasures of knowledge contained in the saving doctrine
which was announced to all, and which would be brought to
light by the exercise of the mental faculties, in proportion as
they received and developed the objects of Christian know
ledge. " The perfect," in the language of Paul, are not
those who possessed a higher intellectual culture, independent
of the Christian faith ; but those whose whole inner life
having been purified and transformed in a high degree by
the vital principle of Christianity, are rendered capable
of deeper Christian intelligence, by a disposition more refined
from all selfish and sensual elements. In proportion as the
Jewish or heathenish spirit (and to the latter belonged the
one-sided speculative tendency, the aotylav ^relr, the arrogant
wisdom of the philosophical schools,) still predominated
among Christians, they were unsusceptible of such knowledge,
and of such a kind of instruction. In like manner, in the
Epistle to the Hebrews, " the strong meat " of the perfect
(of riper Christians) is distinguished from the first elements
of Christian knowledge, which were presupposed as tho
general foundation.
Let us now proceed from those gifts which relate to the
ministry of the word, to that class which relates to other kinds
of outward activity, for the advancement of the kingdom of
God. Here again we must distinguish between those in
which, as in ekdao-raXm, a peculiar capability founded in
human nature, and developed and applied according to its
usual laws, was rendered effective, under the influence of a
new divine principle of life ; and those in which the natural
1 I cannot help considering that interpretation of these words as the
simplest and most agreeable to the connexion, according to which, not
merely a difference grounded on the various relations of one divine
doctrine to the various peculiar states of the men who receive it, (inas
much as the divine doctrine is indeed wisdom, but appears to be whab
it is — wisdom — only to genuine believers, to the perfect,) is signified ;
but also an objective difference of instruction.
USAGES OP THE GENTILE CHRISTIANS. 141
human development was put in the background, and what
was more purely divine became prominent, similarly to the
yXa>cr<Taie AaAtly and the Trpo^r/rtuetr. To the former belong
the gifts of church government, the ^dpiffpa Kvfopn'invc or
TOV TTfMfffTuvat. and the gifts for various services, which were
required in administering the concerns of the church, as dis
tributing alms, tending the sick, <fec., the x^Plfff^u oiaKoylaQ
or avTi\i'i\lseti>G ', 1 Cor. xii. 28 ; Rom. xii. 7. To the second
division belongs especially the gift of working miracles, and
performing cures. The charism from which these two modes
of miraculous operation proceed, considered in its essential
nature, appears to be irlame ; 1 Cor. xii. 9 ; xiii. 2 ; Matt,
xvii. 20. For the term TriariQ in this connexion cannot
denote Christian faith in general, the disposition common to
all Christians ; but must necessarily relate to something
peculiar. Indeed, as seems to follow from the relation of
TTtorie to these two modes of operation, in which a peculiar
power of the will over nature manifests itself, and as is con
firmed by what is predicated of irt'img in 1 Cor. xiii. 2. " If
I had faith so that I could move mountains," i. e. could
render what appeared impossible, possible by the power of
religious conviction working on the Will, — the term iriarig
evidently denotes the practical power of the will animated
and elevated by faith. But with this variety in the mani
festations of the charisms, still he who laboured in the power
of the church, agreed with the worker of miracles, in the
consciousness that all that he effected was only by the power
of God granted to him ; 1 Pet. iv. 11.
Although, as we have shown, in virtue of these spiritual
gifts imparted to individuals, according to their various
peculiarities, no one could exercise a decidedly one-sided
influence 011 the church, but all with reciprocal activity
cooperated for the same object, under the influence of one
head, animating the whole in all its manifold members,
Eph. iv. 1C; yet it by no means followed that all guidance *
1 We cannot, in this place, allow the view brought forward by Bauer
to pass unnoticed, that, in the genuine Pauline Epistles, no trace eau
be found of distinct employments and offices for the guidance and
government of the church. The passage in Rom. xii., in which the
distinctions in the various charisms are pointed out, certainly shows
how fluctuating everything was at that time, and how little those
charisms will assist us as to the meaning of the later church-offices
14-2 CONSTITUTION OF THE CHU11CH.
of the church by human instrumentality was excluded ; but
only that these specially guiding instruments exercised no
corresponding to them. In that passage, it is striking to notice how
Paul, in the 8th and 9th verses, passes from the charisms which seem
to relate to particular offices, to the mention of Christian virtues which
concerned every believer ; at the end of verse 8, the eAewv forms the
point of transition, and even before that, /iera&tSous does not necessarily
relate to any official duty. Thus the view we are led to form of the
original constitution of the churches among Gentile Christians, as they
existed in the apostolic age, — that it was entirely democratic, is also
one of the distinguishing -marks between the churches of Gentile and
those of Jewish origin. The case appears to be thus. All the affairs
of the churches were still transacted in an entirely public manner, so
that every deliberative meeting of the church resembled a strictly
popular assembly. But it happened of course, that although no definite
offices were instituted, to which certain employments were exclusively
attached, yet each one occupied himself with those matters for which he
possessed a peculiar charism ; those who had the gift of teaching, gene
rally attended to teaching, — those who possessed the gift of church
government, occupied themselves with the duties pertaining to it.
Thus, in every meeting of the church, there was a division among its
members of the various business, in proportion to the peculiar charisrns
of individuals, yet without the institution of any definite church-offices.
In favour of this view, it might further be alleged, that, when Paul
(1 Cor. vi.) speaks of a matter belonging to church government, the
settling of litigations, he does not recommend their committing this
business to persons who held a distinct office of governing, whose
concern in that case it would have been ; but speaks of the church as
a body, before whose tribunal such disputes ought to be brought to a
decision. " Is there not one wise man among you," he asked, " who can
settle such matters T Therefore, such wise persons must be taken from
the midst of the church, (or, in other words, those who had the gift of
church government,) to undertake the settlement of these disputes by
means of their peculiar charism, instead of its being referred to any
particular office, which perfectly agrees with the views we have stated.
But this view, which indeed may be formed from such passages, though
not necessarily founded upon them, is decidedly opposed by others.
Paul, in 1 Cor. xvi., says, that the family of Stephanas, as the first
Christian family in Achain, devoted themselves to the service of the
Christian church, i. e. its members declared themselves ready to under
take church offices ; consequently, we may suppose that, at the founding
of the church, such offices were instituted. That this is his meaning,
is confirmed by the 16th verse, where Paul exhorts the church to obey
such (therefore rulers of the church), and all their fellow-labourers.
Further, in 1 Thess. v. 12, he speaks of such who laboured for the
church, presided over them, and admonished them. Love to them as
overseers on account of their laborious calling is particularly enjoined;
and thus the exhortation to peace with one another concludes, since the
division in the church would especially injure their proper relation to
these overseers of the church, and the want of becoming love and reve-
USAGES OF THE GENTILE CHRISTIANS. 143
exclusive authority, did not separate themselves from con
nexion with the whole living organization, formed by a. free
reciprocal action of the individual members, nor dared to
violate their relation to the other members, as equally serv
ing the same head, and the same body. There was indeed
for this guidance a peculiar talent inspired by the Holy
Spirit, xa'piTjua wfitpi'nfTtwg. It was this that fitted a person
for the office of presiding over the church. The name of
presbyter, by which, as we have before remarked, this office
was first distinguished, was transferred from the Jewish
synagogue to the Christian church. But when the church
extended itself further among Hellenic Gentiles, with this
name borrowed from the civil and religious constitution of
the Jews another was joined, which was more allied to the
designations of social relations among the Greeks, and adapted
to point out the official duties connected with the dignity of
presbyters.1 The name eTrtV/coTrot denoted overseers over the
whole of the church and its collective concerns ; as in Attica
rencc towards them would aUo injuriously operate against the unity of
the church. When Paul, in Rom. xvi. 1, mentions a deaconess, it
is certainly presupposed that there were also deacons and presbyters in
such a church. When, in Eph. iv. 11, he names pastors and teachers
next to apostles and prcphets, and indeed after the mention of charism*
as the heavenly gifts bestowed by Christ, we must infer that, among
these pastors and teachers, there were those who exercised distinct
offices, and that, in general, certain offices corresponded to certain
charisms. We intentionally pass over Philip, i. 1, a passage which
can be decisive only for those who, like myself, are convinced of
the genuineness of the epistle. Also, when Luke, Acts xiv. 23, nar
rates that Paul, on his first missionary journey, appointed presbyters in
the new churches, this is, in my opinion, certain historical evidence,
since I must consider the suspicion that, in this work, a later ecclesias
tical point of view has been transferred to earlier and differently formed
church-relations, as absolutely without foundation. But from the existing
relations of the churches, among which there was not in the same sense
as in later times a clergy distinguished from the laity, it is evident, how,
in Rom. xii. 7, along with the charisms connected with specific offices,
those might be named which were not so connected ; and how Paul
could pass on from particular charisms to general Christian virtues.
Attention to the poor and sick, which belonged to the special business of
deacons, was yet something in which others could be employed, besides
those on whom it officially devolved. See Rothe, in the work before
quoted, p. 189.
1 The apostle Peter, in his first Epistle (v. 1, 2)r certainly distinguishes
this dignity by the name Trpfa-pinepoi, but the duties connected with it,
by the term
144 CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH.
those who were commissioned to organize the states dependent
on Athens, received the title of ifriaKowot,1 and as in general it
appears to have been a frequent one, for denoting a guiding
oversight in the public administration.2 Since, then, the
name errivKoirog was no other than a transference of an
original Jewish and Hellenistic designation of office, adapted
to the social relations of the Gentiles ; it follows that originally
both names related entirely to the same office, and hence
both names are frequently interchanged as perfectly synony
mous. Thus Paul addresses the assembled presbyters of the
Ephesian church, whom he had sent for as eTTHTKoirovc* so
likewise in 1 Tim. iii. 1, the office of the presbyters is called
cVfOKOTT?;, and immediately after (verse 8) the office of deacons
is mentioned as the only existing church-office besides ; as in
Philip, i. 1. And thus Paul enjoins Titus to appoint presbyters,
and immediately after calls them bishops. It is, therefore,
certain that every church was governed by a union of the
elders or overseers* chosen from among themselves, and we
1 Otherwise called apuocrrai. Schol. Aristopk. Av. (1023) oj Trap'
*KQ-i)va'i<av els ras inrr)K6ovs 7ro\€is cTrw/ceiJ/acrflcu ret Trap' e
Kdl (pv\aK€S fKa\ovvTO, ovs ot AaKwvfs 'Apfj.offTas
2 Cic. ad Atticum, vii. ep. 11. Vult me Pompeius esse quern tota,
hscc Campana et maritima ora habeat eTr'urKoiroi', ad quain delectus et
summa negotii referatur. In a fragment of a work by Arcadius
Charisius de Muneribus civilibu*, Episcopi qui prsesunt pani et caeteris
venalibus rebus, quse civitatum populis ad quotidianum victum usui
sunt. Digest, lib. iv. tit. iv. leg. 18, § 7.
3 Acts xx. 17, 28. If we believed ourselves justified in supposing
that among them, there were not merely the overseers of the Ephesian
church, but also those of other churches in Lesser Asia, it might be
said, that by these eirirr/c^Trous only the presidents of the presbyteries are
intended. But the other passages in Paul's epistles are against such a
distinction, and Luke, who applies this address only to the overseers of
the Ephesian church, in so doing, shows that he considered the terms
eTrurKOTros and Trpeo-jSi/Tepos as perfectly synonymous.
4 I must here again explain myself in reference to the first organiza
tion of the churches among the Gentile Christians, contrary to the view
maintained by Kist and Bauer, that originally very few churches had formed
themselves under individual overseers, and that their form of government
from the beginning was monarchical. According to Bauer, the overseers as
such in reference to their peculiar office, were eTriV/coTroi, and only when
spoken of as united and forming a college, they were called Trpeo'jSuTepoj.
In Acts xiv. 23, we are told, that Paul appointed presbyters for the
churches, formed in the different cities, that is, in each church a college
of presbyters. If, with Bauer, we understand, that the plurality of pres
byters is to be taken collectively, and for each church only one presbyter
USAGES OF THE GENTILE CHRISTIANS. 145
find among them no individual distinguished above the rest
who presided as a primus inter pares, though probably, in the
age immediately succeeding the apostolic, of which we have
unfortunately so few authentic memorials, the practice was
introduced of applying to such an one the name of eV/woiroc
by way of distinction.1 We have no information how the
office of president in the deliberations of presbyters was held
in the apostolic age. Possibly this office was held in rotation
— or the order of seniority might be followed — or, by degrees,
one individual by his personal qualifications gain such a
distinction ; all this, in the absence of information, must be left
undetermined ; one thing is certain, that the person who acted
as president was not yet distinguished by any particular name.
The government of the church was the peculiar office of
such overseers ; it was their business to watch over the general
order, — to maintain the purity of the Christian doctrine and
of Christian practice, — to guard against abuses, — to admonish
the faulty — and to guide the public deliberations ; as appears
from the passages in the New Testament where their functions
are described. But their government by no means excluded
the participation of the whole church in the management of
their common concerns, as may be inferred from what we have
was appointed, this would be inconsistent with Acts xx. 17, where it is
said that Paul sent for the presbyters of the church at Ephesus, which
implies that a plurality of presbyters presided over one church ; or the
word ^KK\rj(ria which in the passage first quoted is understood of a single
church, must be here arbitrarily taken to signify several churches col
lectively — certainly quite contrary to the phraseology of the apostolic
age, according to which the word fc*c\i|0ia signifies, either the whole
Christian church, the total number of believers, forming one body under
on ; head, or a single church or Christian society. In that case, the
plural TWV lKK\i\ffiit)v must necessarily have been used. Acts xx. 28,
also implies, that over each church a plurality of presbyters presided.
And thus, we must also explain Titus i. 5, which explanatiou (of the
appointment of several presbyters in each city) is also most favoured by
the language there used. I can discover no other difference between the
irpc-fffivTfpoi. and kiriffKoiroi in the apostolic age, than that the first signi
fies the rank, the second the duties of the office, whether the reference
is to one or more.
1 Perhaps an analogy may be found, in the fact (if it were so), that
one among the Jewish presbyters was distinguished by the name of
Archisynugogos ; or the names TrpecrjSurfpot and apx"rvva,y<tr)>oi may bear
the same relation to each other as irpeff&vTfpoi and tiriffitoirni, the first
name denoting the rank, the second the nature of the office,
146 CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH.
already remarked respecting tne nature of Christian commu
nion, and is also evident from many individual examples in
the Apostolic church. The whole church at Jerusalem took
part in the deliberations respecting the relation of the Jewish
and Gentile Christians to each other, and the epistle drawn
up after these deliberations was likewise in the name of the
whole church. The Epistles of the Apostle Paul, which treat
of various controverted ecclesiastical matters, are addressed to
whole churches, and he assumes that the decision belonged to
the whole body. Had it been otherwise, he would have ad
dressed his instructions and advice principally, at least, to the
overseers of the church. When a licentious person belonging
to the church at Corinth was to be excommunicated, the
apostle considered it a measure that ought to proceed from the
whole society ; and placed himself therefore in spirit among
them, to unite with them in passing judgment; 1 Cor. v. 3 — 5.
Also, when discoursing of the settlement of litigations, the
apostle does not affirm that it properly belonged to the over
seers of the church ; for if this had been the prevalent custom,
he would no doubt have referred to it; but what he says
seems to imply that it was usual in particular instances to
select arbitrators from among the members of the church;
1 Cor. vi. 5.
As to what relates to the edification of the church by the
Word, it follows from what we have before remarked, that
this was not the exclusive concern of the overseer of the
church : for each one had a right to express what affected his
mind in the assembly of the brethren ; hence many did not
sufficiently distinguish between what was fit only for their
own chamber, where every man might freely pour forth his
heart before God, and what was suitable for communicating
publicly, — an error censured by Paul, as we noticed in speaking
of the gift of tongues.1
1 It has been maintained, indeed, that this licence in the apostolic
church was extended only to those who appear as prophets in the
Christian assemblies. But from sirh special cases a general licence is
not to be interred, for these men as teachers, armed with divine autho
rity, and speaking in God's name, might on that account be naturally
excepted from common rules. See Mosbeim's Institut. Hist. Ecdes.
major, sec. i. § 10 et 18. But this objection is invalidated by what we
have remarked respecting the prophetic char ism and its relation to
other charisma.
USAGES OF THE GENTILE CHRISTIANS. 147
Only the female members of the church were excepted from
this general permission. The fellowship of a higher life com
municated by Christianity, extended itself to the relation
between husband and wife ; and the unity to which human
nature aspires according to its original destination was
realized in this quarter, as in every other respect, by Christ
ianity. But since whatever is founded on the laws of nature
is not injured by Christianity, but only animated afresh,
sanctified, and refined ; so also in this higher fellowship of
life, which ought to unite husband and wife, the latter retains
her becoming place according to the natural destination of
her sex. Mental receptivity and activity in family life were
recognised in Christianity as corresponding to the destiny of
woman, and hence the female sex are excluded from delivering
public addresses on religious subjects in the meetings of the
church ;' 1 Cor. xiv. 34 ; 1 Tim. ii. 12.
1 1 Cor. xi. 5 appears to contradict this injunction, and in ancient
times the Montanists thought — with whom several modern writers have
agreed — that here an exception is to be found ; as if the apostles
intended to bind by no rule those cases in which the immediate opera
tion of the Divine Spirit raised up prophets from the female sex; or as
if he wished to debar females only from addresses that were peculiarly
didactic, but not from the public expression of their feelings. But as
to the first interpretation, it supposes too great a difference between the
8t5ao-/ceiv — which must also proceed from an operation of the Holy
Spirit — and the irgotyriTeveiy in reference to the divine in both. It
must be certainly erroneous to suppose that any operation whatever of
the Holy Spirit in the Christian church could be lawless. When the
apostle Paul points out to the female -that place in the church which is
assigned her by the spirit of the gospel, which sanctifies nature — the
Holy Spirit which is the Spirit of Christianity, follows everywhere this
law in his operations, and we cannot suppose that by an exception he
would remove woman from her natural position. Every deviation of
this kind would appear as something morbid, and contrary to the spirit
of the gospel.
Besides, when Paul gave that prohibition in reference to females, he
was treating of addresses that were not didactic. This could therefore
make no exception, which would apply to both interpretations. We
must account for this apparent contradiction, by supposing that Paul,
in the second passage, merely cited an instance of what occurred in the
dorinthian church, and reserved his censures for another place. One
of the reasons which Paul adduces in the passage quoted from the first
Epistle to Timothy against the public speaking of females, is the
greater danger of self-deception in the weaker sex, and the spread of
errors arising from it — a reason which would apply with the greatest
force to a class of addresses, in which sober reflectiveness was least of
all in exercise. But this kind of religious utterance would be most
148 CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH.
Yet as, by the participation of all in the conduct of church
affairs, a regular government by appointed organs was not,
excluded, but both cooperated for the general good ; so also
together with that which the members of the church, by
virtue of the common Christian inspiration, could contribute
to their mutual edification, there existed a regular adminis
tration of instruction in the church, and an oversight of the
transmission and development of doctrine, which in this time
of restlessness and ferment was exposed to so many adultera
tions, and for this purpose the xa'pt<r,"a °f &2acv:aXm was
designed. There were three orders of teachers in the apostolic
age. The first place is occupied by those who were personally
chosen and set apart by Christ, and formed by intercourse
with him to be instruments for publishing the gospel among
all mankind — the witnesses of his discourses, his works, his
sufferings, and his resurrection — the Apostles,1 among whom
Paul was justly included, on account of Christ's personal
appearance to him and the illumination of his mind inde
pendently of the instructions of the other apostles ; next to
these, were the Missionaries or Evangelists, evayyeXierrai ;z
and lastly, the Teachers appointed for separate churches, and
suited to the female sex, where no danger of the sort alluded to, arising:
from publicity, would be connected with it — only it must be confined
to the domestic circle. Hence the daughters of Philip, Acts xxi. 9,
notwithstanding that rule, could act as prophetesses, unless we assume
that this was an instance which Paul would have censured.
1 This name in a general sense was applied to others who published
divine truth in an extensive sphere of labour.
2 This name does not imply that they occupied themselves with
collecting and compiling narratives of the life of Christ ; for the name
fvayye\Lov originally denoted nothing else than the whole announce
ment of the salvation granted through Christ to men, and this an
nouncement embraced the whole of Christianity. As this announcement
rests on a historical basis, Christ as the Redeemer is the object of it ;
and thus the later-derived meaning is formed in which this word is
specially applied to the histories of the Life of Christ. According to
the original Christian phraseology, the term could only denote one
whose calling it was to publish the doctrine of salvation to men, and
thereby to lay a foundation for the Christian church ; on the contrary,
the StSatr/caAos presupposed faith in the doctrine of salvation, and a
church already founded, and employed himself in the further training
in Christian knowledge. The use of the word €vayyf\i(rrT]s in 2 Tim.
iv. 5, favours this interpretation, and this original Christian phraseology
was continued in later ages, although a more modern meaning of the
word €vayyt\tov was connected with it. — Euseb. Hist. Eccles. iii. c. 37
USAGES OF THE GENTILE CHRISTIANS. 14U
taken out of their body, the ctcdtrKaXm. If sometimes the
TrpntyfiTai are named next to the apostles and set before the
evangelists and the fVaoxct'Aoic, such teachers must be meant
in whom that inward condition of life, from which Trpo<j>T)Teviu'
proceeded, was more constant, who were distinguished from
other teachers by the extraordinary liveliness and steadiness
of the Christian inspiration, and a peculiar originality of their
Christian conceptions which were imparted to them by special
aVoittiXvvl/ae of the Holy Spirit ; and indeed these prophets,
as is evident from their position between the apostles and
evangelists, belonged to the class of teachers who held no
office in any one church, but travelled about, to publish the
gospel in a wider circle.
As it regards the relation of the £t£a0KoAof to the irperrfiv-
rtpoi or tTTiWoTTot, we dare not proceed on the supposition,
that they always remained the same from the first establishment
of Christian churches among the Gentiles, and therefore
during the whole of Paul's ministry, a period so important
for the development of the church ; and hence we are not
justified to conclude, from the characteristics we find in the
later Pauline Epistles, that the relation of these orders was
the same as existed from the beginning in the Gentile
churches. If we find several things in earlier documents
which are at variance with these characteristics, the supposi
tion must at least appear possible, that changes in the con
dition of the churches, and the experiences of the first period,
had occasioned an alteration in this respect ; and it is an
utterly unfounded conclusion, if, because traces of such an
altered relation are found in an epistle ascribed to Paul, any
one should infer that such an epistle could not have been
written in the Pauline period. The first question then is.
What was the original relation 1 If we proceed on the sup
position, which is founded on the Pastoral Letters, that the
SiSarTKaXoi belonged to the overseers of the churches, two
cases may be imagined ; either that all the presbyters or
bishops held also the office of teachers ; or, that some among
them, according to their peculiar talent (^ript^/ia), were
specially employed in the management of the outward guid
ance of the church (the Kv&ipvrjtTit;), and others with the
internal guidance of the word (the 2t^a<7/,-a\/o). we shall thus
have Trptcr/jurfoot Kvevu>t'7eQ=7roi.itv£Q and irecvTeooi e)t£ci<7-
150 CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH.
c — ci?>d<ri;a\oi. The first case certainly cannot be ad
mitted, for the xdpuTpa of KvfStpmjttf is so decidedly distinct
from the -^dpirrina of ?t$affKa\iat as in common life the talent
for governing and the talent for teaching are perfectly-
distinct from one another. And according to the original
institution the peculiar office corresponded to the peculiar
charism. But since in the latter part of the Pauline period,
those presbyters who were equally capable of the office of
teachers as well as governors, were especially commended, it
is evident that this was not originally the case with all. But
neither have we sufficient reason for considering the second
case, as the original relation of these several offices. Since
the xapurpa of Trpotrrnvai or nvflepryv (in the First Epistle to
the Corinthians xii. 28, and in the Epistle to the Romans
xii. 8), is so accurately distinguished from the talent of
teaching, — and since these two characteristics, the xpoa-rirai
and the wflipvyv, evidently exhaust what belonged from the
beginning to the office of presbyter or bishop, and for which
it was originally instituted, we are not obliged to conclude
that the $t£af<rjcaXo« belonged to the class of overseers of the
church.
In the Epistle written at a late period to the Ephesians
(iv. 11), the TrotjUfVfc and ciddaxaXvi are so far placed toge
ther, that they are both distinguished from those who pre
sided over a general sphere of labour, but yet only in that
respect. Now the term iroifievt^ denotes exactly the office
of rulers of the church, the presbyters or bishops • it there
fore does not appear evident that we should class the
Ct(jd<ri;a\oL with them. On the other hand, the term
Troi/jeVee might be applied not improperly to SiSdarxaXot,
since in itself, and from the manner in which the image
of a shepherd is used in the Old Testament and by Christ
himself, it is fitted to denote the guidance of souls by the
office of teaching. Paul also classes cicayr} with those
addresses which are not connected with holding a particular
office (1 Cor. xiv. 26), but what every one in the church
who had an inward call, and an ability for it, was justified
in exercising.
It might also happen, that in a church after its presbytery
had already been established, persons belonging to it might
come forward, or new members might be added, who, in con-
USAGES OP THE GENTILE CHRISTIANS. 151
sequence of their previous education, distinguished themselves
in the office of teaching, even more than the existing presbyters,
which would soon be evident from the addresses they delivered
when the church assembled. At this season of the first free
development of the Christian life, would the charism granted
to such persons be neglected or repressed, merely because they
did not belong to the "class of presbyters ? There were, as it
appears, some members of the church in whose dwellings a
portion of them used to assemble, and this depended probably
not always on the convenient locality of their residence, but
on their talent for teaching, which was thus rendered availa
ble ; as Aquila, who though he resided sometimes at Home,
sometimes at Corinth, or at Ephesus, always wherever he took
up his abode had a small congregation or church in his own
house. (»'; eKK\riffia er ™ otKy avrou.)1 Thus originally the
office of overseer of the church might have nothing in common
1 The occurrence of such private churches is made u?e of by Kist and
Bauer as an argument for their opinion, that originally in the larger
cities there were only insulated particular churches, under their own guid
ing presbyters, which were formed in various parts, and at a subsequent
period were united into one whole. But the Epistles of the apostle
Paul give the clearest evidence that all the Christians of one city
originally formed one whole church. Yet we may easily suppose that
some parts of the church, without separating themselves from the whole
body and its guidance, held particular meetings in the house of some
person whose locality was very suitable, and who acted as the SiSatr/caAos
for the edification of such small assemblies. Thus it may be explained
how Aquila and Priscilla, while they sojourned at Rome, or Corinth, or
Ephesus, might have such a small Christian society in their own house.
"Yet it docs not seem right to consider these as absolutely separate and
distinct churches; for we could not suppose that such a company of
believers would be waiting for the arrival of a person like Aquila, who
RO often changed his residence ; they must have had a fixed place of
assembling, and their appointed overseers, (a presbyter or bishop, ac
cording to that supposition.) In 1 Cor. xvi. 20, the church, forming
one whole (all the brethren), is expressly distinguished from any such
partial assembly. In Rom. xvi. 23, a brother is mentioned, in whose
house the whole church held their meetings. In Coloss. iv. 15, after a
salutation to the whole church, an individual is specified and included
in the salutation, at whose house such private meetings w.-re held. But
it, may be questioned whether in such places as Rom. xvi. 14, 15,
("Salute Asvncritus and tJte brethren that are with tfiem."
•• Salute Philologus and all the saints that are with them,") meet
ings of this kind are intended, or only those persons who. on account of
their family ties or connexions in business, lived in intimacy with one
another.
152 CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH.
with the communication of instruction. Although the over
seers of the church took cognisance not only of the good
conduct of its members, but also of that which would be con
sidered as forming its basis, the maintenance of pure doctrine,
and the exclusion of error; and though from the beginning
care would be taken to appoint persons to this office who had
attained to maturity and steadiness in their Christian princi
ples, it did not follow that they must possess the gift of teach
ing, and in addition to their other labours occupy themselves
in public addresses. It might be, that at first the SttiaoKaXia
was generally not connected with a distinct office, but that
those who were fitted for it came forward in the public as
semblies as Si$dffKa\ot ', until it came to pass that those who
were specially furnished with the ^dptfr/j.a of SiSaoKaXia, of
whom there would naturally be only a few in most churches,
were considered as those on whom the stated delivery 01
instruction devolved. In the Epistle to the Galatians (vi. 6),
Paul may be thought to intimate1 that there were already
teachers appointed by the church, who ought to receive their
maintenance from them. But the question arises, whether
these words relate to the cudao-mXot, or to the itinerant
euayyeAioreu j also, whether the passage speaks, not of any
regular- salary, but of the contributions of free love, by which
the immediate wants of these missionaries were relieved. At
all events, — which would also be confirmed bv this latter
1 Even after the reasons alleged by Schott against this interpretation,
in his commentary on this Epistle, I cannot help considering it as the
only natural one. And I cannot agree with the other, according to
which the TTUCTIV ayaOols is understood in a spiritual sense, (following
the example of their teachers in all. that is good.) I cannot suppose
that Paul, if he wished to admonish the Galatians to follow the example
of their teachers in the Christian life, would have expressed himself in
so obscure and spiritless a manner. As to the objection against the first
interpretation, that it does not suit the connexion, I cannot admit its
correctness. The exhortations to gentleness and humility in social in
tercourse, introduce the series of special exhortations, v. 26. vi. 6,
where the 8e marks the continued development, a new exhortation
follows, namely, that they should be ready to communicate of their
earthly goods to their teachers ; then ver. 7, that they must not think of
reaping the fruits of the gospel, if their conduct was not formed agree
ably to it ; if they, with all their care directed only to earthly things,
neglected such a duty towards those who laboured for the salvation of
their souls.
USAGES OF TIIK GENTILE CHRISTIANS. Lit'.}
passage, in case it is understood of c^aoncaXoi, these were and
continued to be distinct from the overseers of the church in
general, although in particular cases the talents of teaching
and governing were connected, and the presbyter was equally
able as a teacher.
At a later period, when the pure gospel had to combat with
manifold errors, which threatened to corrupt it — as was
especially the case during the latter period of Paul's ministry.
— at this critical period it was thought necessary to unite
more closely the offices of teachers and overseers, and with
that view to take care that overseers should be appointed,
who would be able by their public instructions to protect the
church from the infection of false doctrine, to establish others
in purity of faith, and to convince the gainsayers ; Tit. i. 9 :
and hence he esteemed those presbyters who laboured likewise
in the office of teaching, as deserving of special honour.
We have already remarked, that only females were ex
cluded from the right of speaking in the public meetings of
the church. But yet the gifts peculiar to their sex might be
made available for the outward service of the church, in
rendering assistance of various kinds, for which women are
peculiarly fitted ; and according to existing social habits, a
deacon in many of his official employments might excite sus
picion in reference to his conduct towards the female members
of the church ; but it was desirable" by all means to guard
against such an imputation on the new religious sect, of which
men were easily inclined to believe evil, because it was new
and opposed to the popular faith. Hence the office of
deaconess was instituted in addition to that of deacon, proba
bly first in the churches of Gentile Christians. Of its institu
tion and nature in the apostolic age we have no precise
information, since we find it explicitly mentioned in only one
passage of the New Testament ; Rom. xvi. 1. In modern
times, indeed, what Paul says in 1 Tim. v. 3 — 1C, of the
widows who received their maintenance from the church, has
been applied to these deaconesses. And many qualifications
which he requires of those who were to be admitted into the
number of the widows (v. 10), and which appear to contain
a reference to their special employments, as attention to
strangers and the care of the poor, are in favour of the sup
position. But since Paul only distinguished them as persons
154 CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH.
supported by the church,1 without mentioning any active
service as devolving upon them ; since he represents them as
persons who, as suited their age and condition, were removed
from all occupation with earthly concerns, and dedicated their
few remaining days to devotion and prayer ; and since, on the
contrary, the office of deaconess certainly involved much active
employment ; we have no ground whatever for finding in this
passage deaconesses, or females out of whose number deacon
esses were chosen. 2 What Paul says in the passage quoted
above of the deaconess of the church at Cenchrea, appears by
no means to agree with what is said in the First Epistle to
Timothy, concerning the age and destitute condition of
widows. We must rather imagine such females to be among
those widows who, after presenting a model in discharging
their duties as Christian wives and mothers, would now
obtain repose and a place of honour in the bosom of the
church, where alone they could find a refuge in their loneli
ness; and by their devotional spiritual life, set an edifying
example to other females ; perhaps also they might be able to
communicate to such of their sex as sought their advice, the
results of their Christian experience collected in the course of
a long life, and make a favourable impression even on the
Gentiles. Hence it would naturally be an occasion of scandal,
if such persons quitted a life of retirement and devotion, and
showed a fondness for habits that were inconsistent with
their matronly character. At all events, we find here an ec
clesiastical arrangement of later date, which is also indicated
by other parts of the Epistle.
The consecration to offices in the church was conducted in
the following manner. After those persons to whom its per-
1 I do not perceive how Bauer can trace in the 5th chapter of the First
Epistle to Timothy, that at that time the name %%cu was applied to
young unmarried females, in reference to their station in the church,
which would be among the marks of a writing composed at a later
period. The ovrcas %%«' in v. 5, are the truly destitute, who could find
relief only in the church for their loneliness, contrasted with the widows
mentioned in verse 4, who were supported by their own relations, in
stead of being a burden to the church. The x%a==At6JUOJ/w^e/J/77>verse 5,
where the Kal is to be understood explicative.
2 The supposition, that in v. 9 mention is made of a different class of
widows than those in v. 3, appears to me utterly untenable. A com
parison of v. 16 with v. 4 and 8, plainly shows that this whole section
relates to the same subject.
USAGES OF THE GENTILE CHRISTIANS. 155
formance belonged, had laid their hands on the head of the
candidate, — a symbolic action borrowed from the Jewish
n;'ntp} — they besought the Lord that lie would grant, what
this symbol denoted, the impartation of the gifts of his Spirit
for carrying on the office thus undertaken in his name. If,
as was presumed, the whole ceremony corresponded to its
intent, and the requisite disposition existed in those for whom
it was performed, there was reason for considering the com
munication of the spiritual gifts necessary for the office,
as connected with this consecration performed in the name of
Christ. And since Paul from this point of view designated
the whole of the solemn proceeding, (without separating
it into its various elements,) by that which was its external
symbol (as in scriptural phraseology, a single act of a trans
action, consisting of several parts, and sometimes that which
was most striking to the senses, is often mentioned for the
whole) ; he required of Timothy that he should seek to revive
afresh the spiritual gifts that he had received by the laying on
of hands.
Respecting the election to offices in the church, it is evident
that the first deacons, and the delegates who were authorized
by the church to accompany the apostles, were chosen from
the general body ; 2 Cor. viii. 19. From these examples, we
may conclude that a similar mode of proceeding was adopted
at the appointment of presbyters. But from the fact that
Paul committed to his disciples Timothy and Titus (to whom
he assigned the organization of new churches, or of such as
had been injured by many corruptions), the appointment
likewise of presbyters and deacons, and called their attention
to the qualifications for such offices, we are by no means
Justified in concluding that they performed all this alone
without the cooperation of the churches. The manner in
which Paul was wont to address himself to the whole church,
and to take into account the cooperation of the whole com
munity, which must be apparent to every one in reading his-
Epistles, — leads us to expect, that where a church was already
established, he would admit it as a party in their common
concerns. It is possible, that the apostle himself in many
cases, as on the founding of a new church, might think it
advisable to nominate the persons best fitted for such offices,
and a proposal from such a quarter would naturally carry the
156 CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH.
greatest weight with it. In the example of the family of
Stephanas at Corinth, we see that those who first undertook
office in the church, were members of the family first con
verted in that city.
It was also among the churches of the Gentile Christians
that the peculiar nature of the Christian worship was fully
expressed in the character of their cultus. For among the
Jewish Christians the ancient forms of the Jewish cultus
were still retained, though persons of this class who were
deeply imbued with the spirit of the gospel, and hence had
acquired the essence of inward spiritual worship, which is
limited to no place or time, — were made free as it regarded
their inward life from the thraldom of these forms, and had
learned to refine these forms by viewing them in the light of
the gospel. Such persons thought that the powers of the
future world which they were conscious of having received,
would still continue to operate in these forms belonging to the
ancient economy, until that future world and the whole of its
new heavenly economy would arrive, by means of the return
of Christ to complete his kingdom, — a decisive era which
appeared to them not far distant. On the contrary,- among
the Gentiles the free spiritual worship of God developed
itself in direct opposition to Judaism and the attempts to
mingle Judaism and Christianity. According to the doc
trine of the apostle Paul, the Mosaic law in its whole extent
had lost its value as such to Christians ; nothing could be a
rule binding on Christians on account of its being contained
in the Mosaic law ; but, whatever was binding as a law for
the Christian life, must as such derive its authority from
another quarter. Hence a transference of the Old Testament
command of the sanctity of the Sabbath to the New Tes
tament standing-point was not admissible. Whoever con
sidered himself subject to one such command, in Paul's
judgment again placed himself under the yoke of the whole
law ; his inward life was thereby brought into servitude to
outward earthly things, and sinking into Jewish nationalism,
denied the universalism of the gospel ; for on the standing-
point of the gospel, the whole life became in an equal manner
related to God, and served to glorify him, and thenceforth no
opposition existed between what belonged to the world and
vhat belonged to God. Thus all the days of the Christian
USAGES OF THE GENTILE CHRISTIANS. 157
life must be equally holy to the Lord; hence Paul says
to the Galatian Christians, who had allowed themselves to be
so far led astray as to acknowledge the Mosaic law as binding,
and to observe the Jewish feasts, " After that ye have known
God, or rather (by his pitying love), have been led to the
knowledge of God, how turn ye again1 to the weak and
beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bond
age V'1 Gal. iv. 9. He fears that his labours among them to
make them Christians had been in vain, and for this very
reason, because they reckoned the observance of certain days
as holy to be an essential part of religion. The apostle does
not here oppose the Christian feasts to the Jewish, but he
considers the whole reference of religion to certain days as
something foreign to the exalted standing-point of Christian
freedom, and belonging to that of Judaism and Heathenism.
With a similar polemical view (in Coloss. ii. 1G) he declares
his opposition to those who considered the observation of cer
tain days as essential to religion, and condemned those who
did not observe them. Although, in the Epistle to the
Romans, xiv. 1 — 6, he enjoins forbearance towards such in
whom the Christian spirit was not yet developed with true
1 Thus he spoke to those who had formerly been heathens ; for
although in other points Judaism might be considered as opposed to
heathenism, yet he viewed as an element common to both, the cleaving
to outward forms.
2 I have translated this passage according to the sense; more lite
rally it would be, — "or rather are known by God." — Living in estrange
ment from him, they lived in spiritual darkness, in ignorance of God
and of divine things; but now by the mercy of God revealing itself to
them, they obtained living communion with him, and the true know
ledge of him. After Paul had contrasted their present standing-point,
of divine knowledge with that of their former ignorance, he corrects
himself, in order not to let it be imagined that they were indebted
simply to the exercise of their own reason for this knowledge of God,
and represents in strong terms, that they were indebted for every thing;
to divine grace, the grace of redemption. Therefore, they were guilty
of ingratitude, in not making use of the knowledge vouchsafed to them
by the grace of God. Had it been possible for Paul, according to the
idiom of the Greek, to mark by a passive form of the same woid
yivtfxrKew, the contrast between a received knowledge imparted by God,
and a knowledge gained by the exercise of the mental powers alone, he
Avould for that purpose have used the passive form. This, indeed, the
laws of the Greek language did not permit ; but yet the passive form,
according to his customary Hellenistic idiom, gave him an opportunity
to mark the contrast which he had in his mind still more strongly
158 CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH.
freedom, yet he certainly considers it as the most genuine
Christianity, to think every day alike, to hold none as
peculiarly sacred to the Lord ; the Kpiieiv rrdyar ijfj.epav — yu//
It is worthy of notice, that Paul in such passages entirely
rejects even festive observances, as they were considered
among Gentiles and Jews as something absolutely essential to
religion, and does not even mention any days which might
be expressly sacred in a freer method, and suited to Chris
tianity, Christian feasts properly so called. So far was he
from thinking that on the Christian standing-point there
could be days which could in any manner bear a resemblance
to what in the Jewish sense was a feast, or that it was neces
sary to set apart any day whatever as specially to be observed
by the church ! From such passages we may conclude, that,
in the Gentile churches, all days of the week were considered
alike suitable for the service of the church ; and that all pre
ference of one day to another was regarded as quite foreign
to the genius of the gospel.
A perfectly unquestionable and decided mention of the
ecclesiastical observance of Sunday among the Gentile Chris
tians, we cannot find in the times of the Apostle Paul, but
there are two passages which make its existence probable.
If what Paul says, 1 Cor. xii. 2, relates to collections which
were made at the meetings of the church, it would be
evident from this passage that at that time the Sunday was
specially devoted to such meetings. But Paul, if we examine
his language closely, says no more than this : that every one
should lay by in his own house on the first day of the week,
whatever he was able to save. This certainly might mean,
that every one should bring with him the sum he had saved
to the meeting of the church, that thus the individual con
tributions might be collected together, and be ready for Paul
as soon as he came. But this would be making a gratuitous
supposition, not at all required by the connexion of the
passage.1 We may fairly understand jthe whole passage
to mean, that every one on the first day of the week should
lay aside what he could spare, so that when Paul came, every
one might be prepared with the total of the sum thus laid
1 The word 0f)<ravpifav, 1 Cor. xvi. 2, applied to setting aside the
small sums weekly, is against the notion of a public collection. »
USAGES OF THE GENTILE CHRISTIANS. 159
by, and then, by putting the sums together, the collection of
the whole church would be at once made. If we adopt this
interpretation, we could not infer that special meetings of tho
church were held and collections made on Sundays. And if
we assume that, independently of the influence of Christianity,
the Jewish reckoning by weeks had been adopted among the
heathen in the Roman Empire ; still in this passage we can
find no evidence for the existence of a religious distinction of
Sunday. But since we are not authorized to make this
assumption unless a church consisted for the most part
of those who had been Jewish Proselytes,1 we shall be led to
infer that the religious observances of Sunday occasioned its
being considered the first day of the week. It is also
mentioned in Acts xx. 7, that the church at Troas assembled
on a Sunday and celebrated the Lord's Supper. Here tho
question arises, whether Paul put off his departure from
Troas to the next day, because he wished to celebrate the
Sunday with this church — or whether the church met on
the Sunday (though they might have met on any other
day), because Paul had fixed to leave Troas on the follow
ing day.
At all events, we must deduce the origin of the religious
observance of Sunday, not from the Jewish-Christian churches,
but from the peculiar circumstances of the Gentile Christians,
and may account for the practice in the following manner.
Where the circumstances of the churches did not allow of
daily meetings for devotion and agapce — although in the
nature of Christianity no necessity could exist for such a dis
tinction — although on the Christian standing-point all days
were to be considered as • equally holy, in an equal manner
devoted to the Lord — yet on account of peculiar outward
relations, such a distinction of a particular day was adopted
for religious communion. They did not choose the Sabbath
which the Jewish Christians celebrated, in order to avoid the
risk of mingling Judaism and Christianity, and because
another event was more closely associated with Christian
sentiments. The sufferings and resurrection of Christ appeared
as the central point of Christian knowledge and practice ;
since his resurrection was viewed as the foundation of all
Christian joy and hope, it was natural that the day which
1 See Idclcr's Chronologic, i. 180.
160 CONSTITUTION OP THE CHURCH.
was connected with the remembrance of this event, should be
specially devoted to Christian communion.
But if a weekly day was thus distinguished in the churches
of Gentile Christians, still it is very doubtful that any yearly
commemoration of the resurrection was observed among them.
Some have endeavoured to find in 1 Cor. v. 7, a reference to
a Christian passover to be celebrated in a Christian sense
with a decided reference to Christian truth : but we can find a
reference only to a Jewish passover, which was still celebrated
by the Jewish Christians. When Paul was writing those
words, the Jews and Jewish Christians were present to his
imagination, as on the fourteenth of Nisan, they carefully
searched every corner of their houses, lest any morsel of
leaven should have escaped their notice. This practice of
outward Judaism he applies in a spiritualized sense to
Christians. " Purify yourselves from the old leaven (the
leaven of your old nature, which still cleaves to you from
your old corruption), that you may become a new mass
(meaning renewed and justified human nature), and as it
were unleavened ; that is, purified by Christ from the leaven
of sin, as elsewhere Paul represents purification from sin, the
being dead to sin as connected with the death of Christ, l for
Christ has been offered as our paschal lamb : they ought ever
to remember that true paschal lamb, by whose offering they
were truly freed from sin ; the Jewish passover w~as hence
forth wholly useless. Therefore, as men purified from sin by
Christ our paschal lamb, let us celebrate the feast, not after
the manner of the Jews, who swept the leaven out of their
houses, but retained the leaven of old corruption in their
hearts — but let us so celebrate it that we may be a mass
purified in heart from the leaven of sin." In all this, there
is evidently no reference to the celebration of a Christian
passover among Gentile Christians, but only the contrast of
1 This is no doubt the simplest interpretation of the words Ka6&s
eo-re &^vp.oi, " as ye are unleavened," purified as redeemed persons, for
ever from the £u/nj T^S a/xapTiay. But, if with Grotius, we understand
the words according to the analogy of the Greek &TITOS, &OLVOS, " as ye
eat no leaven," and thus are equivalent to, " as ye celebrate the feast of
unleavened bread, or the Passover," still this may be understood only of a
spiritual passover; for otherwise it would not agree with that which is
afterwards adduced as a reason, and it would also be implied, that the
Gentile Christians had refrained from leavened bread at Easter, which
Paul, on his principles, could not have allowed.
USAGES OF THE GENTILE CHRISTIANS. 1G1
the spiritual passover, comprehending the whole life of the
redeemed, with the merely outward Jewish feast. '
The celebration of the two symbols of Christian commu
nion, Baptism and the Lord's Supper, belonged to the un
changeable plan of the Christian church, as framed by its
Divine Founder ; these rites were to be recognised equally
by Jews and Gentiles, and no alteration would be made in
reference to them by the peculiar formation of ecclesiastical
life among the Gentiles ; we need therefore to add little to
what we have before remarked. In Baptism, entrance into
communion with Christ appears to have been the essential
point ; thus persons were united to the spiritual body of
Christ arid received into the communion of the redeemed,
the church of Christ; Gal. iii. 27; 1 Cor. xii. 13. Hence
baptism, according to its characteristic marks, was designated
a baptism into Christ, into the name of Christ, as the acknow
ledgment of Jesus as the Messiah was the original article of
faith in the apostolic church, and this was probably the most
ancient2 formula of baptism, which was still made use of
even in the third century (see my Church History, vol. i.
p. 546). The usual form of submersion at baptism, practised
by the Jews, was transferred to the Gentile Christians.
Indeed, this form was the most suitable to signify that which
Christ intended to render an object of contemplation by such
a symbol ; the immersion of the whole man in the spirit of a
new life. But Paul availed himself of what was accidental to
the form of this symbol, the twofold act of submersion and
of emersion, to which Christ certainly made no reference at
the institution of the symbol. As he found therein a reference
to Christ Dead, and Christ Risen, the negative and positive
aspect of the Christian life — in the imitation of Christ to die
to all ungodliness, and in communion with him to rise to a
new divine life, — so in the given form of baptism, he made
use of what was accessory in order to reoresent, by a sensible
1 If we supposed that these words related to an Easter-feast, cele
brated among the Centile Christians, it would Follow that they cele
brated this feast at the same time as the Jews, and then it would hardly
be possible to explain the rise of the disputes relative to the time of
observing Easter.
2 In the Shepherd of Hennas (visio iii. c. 7), in Fabriccii Cod. apocr.
Nov. Test. p. 804, it is said, baptizavi in nomine Domini.
VOL. I. M
162 CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH.
image, the idea and design of the rite in its connexion with
the whole essence of Christianity.
Since baptism marked the entrance into communion with
Christ, it resulted from the nature of the rite, that a confes
sion of faith in Jesus as the Redeemer would be made by the
person to be baptized ; and in the latter part of the apostolic
age, we may find indications of the existence of such a prac
tice. l As baptism was closely united with a conscious
entrance on Christian communion, faith and baptism were
always connected with one another ; and thus it is in the
highest degree probable that baptism was performed only in
instances where both could meet together, and that the
practice of infant baptism was unknown at this period. We
1 These indications are such as will not amount to incontrovertible
certainty. We find the least doubtful reference in 1 Pet. iii. 21, but
the interpretation even of this passage has been much disputed. If the
words are understood in this sense, "a question according to a good
conscience in relation to God, by means of the resurrection of Christ,"
a question proposed at baptism might be inferred from it, of which the
purport would be, whether a person believed in the resurrection of
Christ, as the pledge of the forgiveness of sins granted to him, and
hence would think of God in this faith with a good conscience. But
Winer against such an interpretation of the passage justly objects, that
in this case, the answer given by the candidate as an expression of his
•Confession of his faith, of Avhat peculiarly related to salvation, and not
the question, must have been mentioned. Yet Winer's explanation (in
his Grammar) in reference to the word eTrepwr^ua, — the seeking of a
good conscience after God, — although eTrepwr^z/ els in the Hellenistic
idiom, as the passage adduced by Winer shows, may have this meaning
— does not appear the most natural. If Paul had wished to say this,
would he not have preferred using the form eirepcbr'nffis 1 And might
it not be said against this interpretation, that the apostle would have
represented that which saved at baptism, not the seeking after God,
but the finding God through Christ, the longing for communion with
him, according to the analogy of scriptural representations on this
subject?
But what Peter wished particularly to point out, was the spiritual
character of the whole baptismal rite, in opposition to a mere outward
sensible purification. This spiritual character might be pointed out by
the question proposed at baptism, which referred to the spiritual reli
gious object of the rite, and the question is alluded to instead of the
answer, because it precedes and is that which gives occasion to the
answer, and thus the first interpretation may be justified.
The second trace of such a baptismal confession is found in 1 Tim.
vi. 12, but it is not quite evident, that a confession of this kind is
intended ; it might be only one which Timothy had given from the free
impulse of feeling, when he was set apart to be the associate of Paul in
publishing the gospel.
USAGES OF THE GENTILE CHRISTIANS. 1G3
cannot infer the existence of infant baptism from the instance
of the baptism of whole families, for the passage in 1 Cor.
xvi. 15, shows the fallacy of such a conclusion, as from that it
appears that the whole family of Stephanas, who were bap
tized by Paul, consisted of adults. That not till so late a
period as (at least certainly not earlier than) Ireusous, a trace
of infant baptism appears, and that it first became recognised
as an apostolic tradition in the course of the third century, is
evidence rather against than for the admission of its apostolic
origin ; especially since, in the spirit of the age when Christ
ianity appeared, there were many elements which must have
been favourable to the introduction of infant baptism, — the
same elements from which proceeded the notion of the magical
effects of outward baptism, the notion of its absolute neces
sity for salvation, the notion which gave rise to the mythus
that the apostles baptized the Old Testament saints in Hades.
How very much must infant baptism have corresponded with
such a tendency, if it had been favoured by tradition ! It
might indeed be alleged, on the other hand, that after infant
baptism had long been recognised as an apostolic tradition,
many other causes hindered its universal introduction, and the
same causes might still earlier stand in the way of its spread,
although a practice sanctioned by the apostles. But these
causes could not have acted in this manner, in the post-
apostolic age. In later times, we see the opposition between
theory and practice, in this respect, actually coming forth.
Besides, it is a different thing, that a practice which could not
altogether deny the marks of its later institution, although at
last recognised as of apostolic founding, could not for a length
of time pervade the life of the church ; and that a practice
really proceeding from apostolic institution and tradition,
notwithstanding the authority that introduced it, and the
circumstances in its favour arising from the spirit of the times,
should yet not have been .generally adopted. And if we wish
to ascertain from whom such an institution was originated, we
should say, certainly not immediately from Christ himself.
Was it from the primitive church in Palestine, from an
injunction given by the earlier apostles'? But among the
Jewish Christians, circumcision was held as a seal of the
covenant, and hence, they had so much less occasion to
use of another dedication for their children. Could it then
164 CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH.
have been Paul, who first among heathen Christians intro
duced this alteration by the use of baptism. But this would
agree least of all with the peculiar Christian characteristics of
this apostle. He who says of himself that Christ sent him not
to baptize, but to preach the gospel ; he who always kept his-
eye fixed on one thing, justification by faith, and so carefully
avoided every thing which could give a handle or support to
the notion of a justification by outward things (the aapKiMi) —
how could he have set up infant baptism against the circum
cision that continued to be practised by the Jewish Chris
tians'? In this case, the dispute carried on with the Judaizing
party, on the necessity of circumcision, would easily have
given an opportunity of introducing this substitute into the
controversy, if it had really existed. The evidence arising
from silence on this topic, has therefore the greater weight. l
1 If it could be shown, that at this time there was a practice of ad
ministering to living persons a substitutionary baptism for the dead, an
interpretation of 1 Cor. xv. 19, which has been lately advocated by
Biickert — this would stand in striking contradiction with the absence
of infant-baptism. If so unconditional a necessity was ascribed to out
ward baptism, and such a magical power for the salvation of men, as to
have occasioned the introduction of such a practice, from such a stand
ing-point men must have been brought much sooner to the practice of
infant-baptism. But although the explanation here proposed arises
from the most natural interpretation of the words, I cannot assent to it,
since it does not satisfy other conditions of a correct exegesis. What
idea can we form of such a practice of substitutionary baptism 1 Was it
that persons hoped by means of it to save their deceased friends and
relatives, and those who had remained far from the faith1? But since at
that time such stress was laid on the necessity of repentance and faith,
•we are at a loss to conceive how such an error and abuse could gain ac
ceptance. The supposition of this necessity lies at the foundation of the
mythus of the baptism administered in Hades to the saints of the Old
Testament. We might rather suppose that if persons wrho had become
believers died before they could fulfil their resolution of being baptized,
a substitutionary baptism would be made use of for them. But
in such cases, it would have been more consonant to a superstitious-
adherence to an outward rite, that they should have hastened to impart
baptism to the dying, or even to the dead, and we find traces of both
these practices in later times. Of a substitutionary baptism, on the
contrary, no trace can be found, with the exception of the single passage-
in Paul's writings. An improper appeal has been made on this point
to Tertullian. He says, de Resurrectione Carnis, c. 48, only what he
believed was to be found in these words of Paul, without referring to
any other quarter. In his work against Marcion, v. 10, he also refers to
this passage, and such a substitutionary baptism appeared to him a*
somewhat analogous to the heathenish purgations for the dead on the
USAGES OF THE GENTILE CHRISTIANS. 1G5
We find, indeed, in one passage of Paul, 1 Cor. vii. 14, a trace,
that already the children of Christians where distinguished
from the children of heathens, and might be considered in a
certain sense as belonging to the church, but this is not
deduced from their having partaken of baptism, and this
mode of connexion with the church is rather evidence against
the existence of infant baptism. The apostle is here treating
of the sanctifying influence of the communion between parents
and children, by which the children of Christian parents would
be distinguished from the children of those who were not
Christian, and in virtue of which they might in a certain sense
be termed aym, in contrast with the dwQapra. l But if infant
baptism had been then in existence, the epithet ayia, applied
to Christian children, would have been deduced only from this
sacred rite by which they had become incorporated with the
Christian church. But in the point of view here chosen by
Paul, we find (although it testifies against the existence of
infant baptism) the fundamental idea from which infant
baptism was afterwards necessarily developed, and by which it
1st of February, the Febmationes. He thought it important to remark,
that Paul could not have approved of such a practice. " Viderit insti-
tutio ista. Kalends si forte Fcbruarice respondebunt illi: pro niortuis
petere. Noli ergo npostolum novum statim auctorem aut eonfirma-
torcm ejus denotare, ut tanto magis sisteret carnis resurrectionem,
<juanto illi qui vane pro niortuis baptizarentur, fide resurrectionis hoc
facerent." And he himself afterwards proposes another interpretation
of the passage, according to which there is no allusion to a substitu-
tionary baptism. Later uneducated Marcionit.es in Syria had, most
probably from this passage of St. Paul's, adopted a practice altogether
at variance with the spirit of Marcion. Besides, we might suppose that
Paul employed an argumentum ad hominem, and adduced a supersti
tious custom as evidence of a truth lying at the foundation of Christian
knowledge. But still it is difficult to suppose that Paul, >vho so zealously
opposed all dependence on outward things, and treated it as the -worst
adulteration of the gospel, should not from the first have expressed
himself in the strongest terms against such a delusion.
1 The immediate impressions — which proceed from the whole of the
intercourse of life, and by means of the natural feeling of dependence of
children on their parents, pass from the latter to the former— have a far
stronger hold than the effects of instruction, and such impressions may
begin before the ability for receiving instruction in a direct manner
exists. These impressions attach themselves to the first germs of con
sciousness, and on that account, the commencement of this sanctifying
influence cannot be precisely determined. See De Wette's excellent re
marks in the Studicn und Kritiken, 1839. Part iii. p. 671.
16G CONSTITUTION OF THE CHURCH.
must be justified to agree with Paul's sentiments ; an indica
tion of the preeminence belonging to children born in a
Christian community ; the consecration for the kingdom of
God which is thereby granted to them, an immediate sanc
tifying influence which would communicate itself to their
earliest development. l
As to the celebration of the Holy Supper, it continued to
be connected with the common meal, in which all as members
of one family joined, as in the primitive Jewish church, and
agreeably to its first institution. In giving a history of the
Corinthian church, we shall have occasion to speak of the
abuses which arose from the mixture of ancient Grecian cus
toms with the Christian festival.
The publication of the gospel among the heathen, was desti
tute of those facilities for its reception, which the long-con
tinued expectation of a Redeemer as the promised Messiah
gave it among the Jews. Here was no continuous succession
of witnesses forming a revelation of the living God, with which
the gospel, as already indicated and foretold by the law and
prophets among the Jews, might connect itself. Still the
annunciation of a Redeemer found its point of connexion in
the universal feeling adhering to the very essence of human
nature — the feeling of disunion and guilt, and as a conse
quence of this, though not brought out with distinctness, a
longing after redemption from such a condition ; and by the
mental development of these nations, and their political con
dition at that period, sentiments of this class were more
1 The words in 1 Cor. vii. 14, may be taken in a twofold manner. If
we understand with De "\Vette the vpoov as applied to all Christians —
(which the connexion and the use of the plural render probable) — then
the apostle infers that the children of Christiana, although not incorpo
rated with the church, nor yet baptized, might be called ajia (which is
De Wette's opinion), and thus what we have remarked in the text
follows as a necessary consequence. But if we admit that Paul is
speaking of the case of married persons, in which one party was
a Christian, and the other a heathen, and that from the sanctification of
the children of such a marriage, he infers the sanctification of the whole
marriage relation — which thought perfectly suits the connexion — then
it would appear that Paul deduces a sanctification of the children
by their connexion with the parents, but not from their baptism, for the
baptism of children, in these circumstances, could, in many instances,
be hardly performed. If an infant baptism then existed, he could not
call the children of such a mixed marriage ayta, in the same sense as
the children of parents who were both Christians.
USAGES OF THE GENTILE CHRISTIANS. 167
vividly felt, while the feeling of disunion (in man's own
powers, and between man and God) was manifested in the pre
vailing tendency towards dualistic views. The youthful con
fidence of the old world was constantly giving way to a feeling
of disunion and sadness excited by the more powerful sense of
the law written on the heart, which, like the external law
given to the Jews, was destined to guide the Gentiles to the
Saviour. The gospel could not be presented in the relation
it bore to Judaism, as the completion of what already existed
in the popular religion ; it must come forth as the antagonist
of the heathenish deification of nature, and could only attach
itself to the truth lying at the foundation of this enormity,
the sense, namely, in the human breast of a hidden, unknown
deity ; it was necessary to announce Christianity as the reve
lation of that God in whom, by virtue of their divine original,
men " lived and moved and had their being," but of whom, in
consequence of their estrangement from him by sin, they had
only a mysterious sense as an unknown and distant divinity.
Under this aspect it might also be represented as a completion
of that which was implanted by God in the original constitu
tion of man, as the final aim of this indistinct longing. Also,
in relation to all that was truly natural, belonging to the ori
ginal nature of man, and not founded in sin, it might be truly
asserted, that Christ came not to destroy, but to fulfil. And
here certainly the Gentiles were placed in a more advantageous
position than the Jews ; they were not exposed to the tempta
tion of contemplating Christianity only as the completion of
a religious system already in existence, and of disowning its
purpose of producing an entire transformation of the life ; for
to a convert from heathenism, Christianity presenting itself in
direct opposition to the whole of his former religious standing-
point, must necessarily appear as something altogether new
and designed to effect an entire revolution. Meanwhile, al
though Christianity must have at first presented itself as
opposed to the existing elements of life in heathenism ; yet
Christians who continued to live in intercourse with heathens
among their old connexions, were so much the more exposed
in a practical view to the infection of a corrupt state of morals,
till their Christian life became firmly established. And
although the peculiar position of the Gentiles did not expose
them so much as the Jews to pervert the gospel into an opus
168 PAUL'S SECOND MISSIONARY JOURNEY.
operatum, and thus to misuse it as a cloak for immorality, still
such an error might arise, not from the influence of Judaizing
teachers, but from the depraved condition of human nature.
It is evident that Paul deemed it necessary emphatically to
guard and warn them against it. 1
Another danger of a different kind threatened Christianity
when it found its way among the educated classes in the seats
of Grecian learning. Since in these places the love of know
ledge predominated, and surpassed in force all the other fun
damental tendencies of human nature ; since men were disposed
to cultivate intellectual eminence to the neglect of morals, and
Christianity gave a far wider scope than heathenism to the
exercise of the mental powers ; since in many respects it
agreed with those among the Grecian philosophers, who rested
their opposition to the popular religions on an ethical basis ;
the consequence was, that they made Christianity, contrary to
its nature and design, chiefly an exercise of the understand
ing, and aimed to convert it into a philosophy, thus subordi
nating the practical interest to the theoretical, and obscuring
the real genius of the gospel. The history of the further
spread of Christianity among the heathen, and of individual
churches founded among them, will give us an opportunity of
developing this fact, and setting it in a clearer light. We
now proceed to the second missionary journey of the apostle
Paul,
CHAPTER VI.
THE SECOND MISSIONARY JOURNEY OP THE APOSTLE PAT/L.
AFTER, Paul and Barnabas had spent some time with the
church at Antioch, they resolved to revisit the churches
founded in the course of their former missionary journey, and
then to extend their labours still further. Barnabas wished
to take his nephew Mark again with them as a companion,
but Paul refused his assent to this proposal, for he could not
1 The Kevol \6yot, against which Paul warns the Ephesians, (v. 6.)
PAUL'S SECOND MISSIONARY JOURNEY. 1G9
excuse his having allowed attachment to home to render him
unfaithful to the Lord's service, and deemed one who was not
ready to sacrifice every thing to this cause as unfitted for
such a vocation. We see on this occasion the severe earnest
ness of Paul's character, which gave up, and wished others to
give up, all personal considerations and feelings where the
cause of God was concerned ; he never allowed himself to be
tempted or seduced in this respect by his natural attachment
to the nation to whom he belonged.1 The indulgence shown
by Barnabas to Mark might proceed either from the peculiar
mildness of his Christian character, or from a regard to the
ties of relationship not yet sufficiently controlled by the power
of the Christian spirit. That such human attachments had
too much influence on Barnabas, is shown by his conduct
at Antioch on the occasion of the conference between Peter
and Paul. Thus a sudden difference arose between two men
who had hitherto laboured together in the work of the Lord,
which ended in their separation from one another, and
thus it was shown, that these men of God were not free
from human weakness ; but the event proved that even this
circumstance contributed to the extension of the kingdom
of God, for, in consequence of it, the circle of their labours
was very greatly enlarged. Barnabas now formed a sphere
of action for himself, and first of all visited with Mark
his native country Cyprus, and then most probably devoted
himself to preach the gospel in other regions. For that
he remained in his native country unemployed in missionary
service, not only his labours up to this time forbid our
supposing, but also the terms in which Paul speaks of him at
a later period (1 Cor. ix. G) as a well-known and indefatigable
preacher of the gospel. Paul's severity towards his nephew
was probably of service to Mark in leading him to a sense of
his misconduct, for he afterwards continued faithful to his
vocation. This separation was in the issue only temporary,
for we afterwards find Barnabas, Paul, and Mark, in close
connexion with one another, although Barnabas appears
1 In the irp&Tov of Eom. i. 16, we cannot, with Rlickert, find marks
of this national attachment not entirely overcome. This irpwrov cor
responds with the necessary historical development of the theocracy.
The supposition is also excluded by the application of irpwrov in
Horn. ii. 9.
170 PAUL'S SECOND MISSIONARY JOURNEY.
always to have retained a separate independent sphere of
action. In his stead Paul took Silas as his fellow-labourer.
From the beginning of his ministry, it was a fixed principle
with Paul, as he himself tells us in Rom. xv. 20, and
2 Cor. x. 16, to form his own field of labour for the pro
pagation of the gospel, and not to trespass on that of any
other person ; instead, therefore, of betaking himself first to
Cyprus, as on former occasions, he travelled through the
neighbouring parts of Syria to Cilicia, Pisidia, and the towns
in which he had laboured on his first journey. In the town
of Lystra,1 he found a young man named Timothy, who, by
the instructions of his mother, a pious Jewess, but married to
a heathen, had received religious impressions, which had an
abiding effect. His mother was converted when Paul first
visited that town, and young Timothy also became a zealous
confessor of the gospel. The report of his Christian zeal had
spread to the neighbouring town of Iconium. In the church
to which he belonged, the voices of prophets announced that
he was destined to be a distinguished agent in spreading the
1 I must here differ from the opinion I expressed in the first edition.
In Acts xvi. 1, the e'/ce?, if there are no reasons for the contrary, is most
naturally understood of the place last mentioned, Lystra ; and since
the favourable testimony to his character given by the brethren at
Lystra and Iconium is mentioned, we may presume, with some con
fidence, that one of these towns was his native place ; for it is not pro
bable that what those who knew him best said of him should be passed
over, though it is barely possible that the testimony of persons living in
the nearest towns to his own might be adduced. In Acts xx. 4, the
approved reading is rather for than against this supposition ; for
if Timothy had been a native of Derbe, the predicate Atp&aios would
not have been applied to Td'ios alone, but Luke would have written
Aepficuos Se Td'ios Kal Tt^uoflebs or Td'ios Kal Ti/j-odebs Aepfiaioi. But it is
surprising that, in this passage, Timothy stands alone without the men
tion of his native place, and that in Acts xix. 29, Aristarchus and Gaius
are named together as Macedonians and companions of Paul. Hence it
might be presumed, that the predicate Aepficuos had been misplaced,
and ought to stand after Timothy's name. Aristarchus, Secundus, and
Gaius, would then be named as natives of Thessalonica, and Timothy of
Derbe. But if we adopt this view, then Acts xvi. 1, 2, must be
differently explained. But still it is not probable that the more easy
reading could be altogether removed to make way for one more difficult.
So common a name as Gaius might easily belong to a Christian
at Derbe and to another from Macedonia, as we find it borne also by
an approved Christian residing at Corinth, Eom. xvi. 23, 1 Cor. i. 14 ;
and Timothy's native place might be omitted because he was the best
known of all Paul's associates.
PAUL'S SECOND MISSIONARY JOURNEY. 171
gospel. It gratified Paul to have a zealous youth with him,
who could assist him on his missionary journeys, and be
trained for a preacher under his direction. He seconded the
voices that thus called on Timothy, and the young man him
self was prepared by his love to their common Lord, to
accompany his faithful servant every where. As by his
descent and education he belonged on one side to the Jews,
and on the other to the Gentiles, he was so much the more
fitted to be the companion of the apostles among both. And
in order to bring him nearer the former, Paul caused him to
be circumcised, by which ho forfeited none of the publicly
acknowledged rights of the Gentile Christians ; for being the
son of a Jewess, and educated in Judaism, he could with
more propriety be claimed by the Jews.
After Paul had visited the churches already founded in this
district, he proceeded to Phrygia. Of course he could not, either
on this or on a later journey, publish the gospel in all the
threescore and two l towns of the populous province of Phrygia.
He must have left much to be accomplished by his pupils,
such, for instance, as Epaphras at Colossa3, who afterwards
founded a church there, and in the towns of Hierapolis and
Laodicea."' Thence he directed his course northward to
1 This is the number stated in the sixth century by Hierocles, author
of the 2.vvfK$i)iJ.os, or a " Travellers Companion/' which gives an
account of the provinces and towns of the Eastern Empire.
2 I cannot agree with the opinion of Dr. Schulz, brought forward in
the Studien und Kritiken, vol. ii. part 3, which is also advocated by
Dr. Schott in his Jsagoge, that Paul himself was the founder of these
churches. I cannot persuade myself that, if the Colossians and Laodi-
ceans had received the gospel from the lips of the apostle, he would
have placed them so closely in connexion with those who were not per
sonally known to him, without any distinction, as we find in Coloss. ii. 1 ;
since, in reference to the anxiety of the apostle for the churches, it
always made an important difference whether he himself had founded
them or not. The uaoi would have been used too indefinitely, if its
meaning had not been fixed by what preceded ; from which it appears,
that those churches of Phrygia are referred to, which, like the churches
at Colossjs and Laodicea, had not been founded by Paul himself. And
how can it be supposed that, in an epistle to a church founded by him
self, he would never appeal to what they had heard from his own lips,
but only to the announcement of the gospel, which they had heard from
others] and that he should speak not of what he himself had seen and
heard among them, but only of what had been reported to him by
others respecting their state ] The acute remarks of Wiggers, in the
Studien und Kritiken, 1838, part i. p. 171, have not induced me to
172
Galatia. As many Jews resided in this province, lie addressed
himself probably first to these, and to the proselytes who
worshipped with them in the synagogues. But the ill-treat
ment he met with among the Jews prepared an opening for
him to the Gentiles, by whom he was received with great
affection.
Paul had to maintain a severe conflict with bodily suffering,
as appears from many allusions in his epistles, where he speaks
of his being given up to a sense of human weakness. Nor is
this surprising, for as a Pharisee, striving after the righteous
ness of the law, he had certainly not spared his own body.
After he had found salvation by faith in the Kedeemer, and
had attained the freedom of the evangelical spirit, he was, it
is true, very far from a tormenting castigation of his body,
and from legal dependence on works ] he expresses the most
alter my opinion on this point. The explanation he gives of the words
in Coloss. ii. 1, " also for those (among the Christians in Colossse and
Laodicea) who have not known me personally," appears to me not so
natural as the common one, which I follow. If Paul had intended to
say this, he Avould hardly have failed to limit Strot by adding vuGiv. If
the Kal in verse 7 is also to be retained, yet I do not find any intimation
conveyed by it that they had received instruction from another teacher,
but only a reference to what preceded, that they had received from
Epaphras the same gospel of the divine grace which had been published
throughout the world. But, from external evidence, I cannot help con
sidering the Kal as suspicious ; — the frequent repetition of it in the pre
ceding part, and the observable reference to v. 6, might easily occasion
the insertion of such a Kal. But if the Kal is spurious, it appears much
more clearly that Epaphras, not Paul, was the teacher of this church.
He is called (inrep TJ/J.WI/ Sia/co^os) a servant of Christ in Paul's stead,
because Paul had given over to him the office of proclaiming the gospel
in the three cities of Phrygia which he himself could not visit. It is
not clear to me that Paul, in ii. 5, may not have used the word forest
to denote his bodily absence in opposition to his spiritual presence
among them, although he did not mean that he had been once among
them, and was now removed to a distance from them. It still appears
to me remarkable, that — if he wrote some years after his presence
among them — there should be no allusion to his personal intercourse
with them, especially in an epistle to a church which was in so critical
a state ; to whom it was so important to evince his love and care for
them, and to exhort faithfully to keep the instructions they had received
from him ; and especially, if he had the opportunity of commending
Epaphras to them, as the person who had carried on the work which he
had begun, he would so much the more have stated explicitly, that
Epaphras taught no other doctrine than what they had at first received
from himself, that he would only raise the superstructure on the
foundation laid by himself.
PAUL'S SECOND MISSIONARY JOURNEY. 173
decided opposition to everything of the kind, in language
which exhibits him to us as independent of all outward
circumstances, with a spirit that freely subordinated and
appropriated all that was external to an infinitely higher
object. Such arc those memorable words which testify such
consciousness of true freedom : " I know both how to be
abased, and I know how to abound : everywhere and in all
things, I am instructed both to be full and to be hungry,
both to abound and to suffer need. I can do all things
through Christ that strengthened inc." Philip, iv. 12, 13.
But his new vocation allowed him still less to spare himself,
since he laboured hard with his own hands for a livelihood,
while he exerted his powers both of mind and body to the
utmost in his apostolic ministry ; he had so many dangers to
undergo, so many hardships and sufferings to endure, under
which a weak body might soon sink. Yet with the sense of
human weakness, the consciousness waxed stronger of a might
surpassing everything that human power could effect, a divine
all-conquering energy which proved its efficiency in the
preaching of the gospel and in him as its instrument ; and he
could perfectly distinguish this divine power from all merely
human endowments. Under a sense of human weakness, he
became raised above himself, by that inward glory which
beamed upon him in those communications of a higher world
with which ho was honoured. He considered a peculiarly
oppressive pain which constantly attended him, and checked
the soaring of his exalted spirit, as an admonition to humility
given him by God, as a counterpoise to those moments of
inward glorification which were vouchsafed him. And he
informs us, that after he had prayed thrice to the Lord, to
free him from this oppressive pain, an answer by a divino
voice — either in vision or in pure inward consciousness — was
granted him — that he must not desire to be freed from that
which deepened the sense of his human weakness, but must
be satisfied with the consciousness of the divine grace im
parted to him ; for the power of God proved itself to be truly
such, even in the midst of human weakness.1
1 I cannot agree with those who think that Paul, in 2 Cor. xii. 7,
where he alludes to something that constantly tormented him like a
piercing thorn which a person carries about in his body, only intended
to signify his numerous opponents. Certainly we cannot be justified
174: PAUL'S SECOND MISSIONARY JOURNEY.
He experienced the truth of this especially during his
ministry in Galatia. His body was bowed down through
debility, but the divine power of his words and works, so
strikingly contrasted with the feebleness of the material
organ, made a powerful impression on susceptible disposi
tions. Under these circumstances, the glowing zeal of self-
sacrificing love which amidst his own sufferings enabled him
to bear everything so joyfully for the salvation of others,
must have attracted the hearts of his hearers with so much
greater force, and excited that ardent attachment to his person
which he so vividly describes in Gal. iv. 14. " Ye received
me as an angel of God, even as Jesus Christ."
The Galatian churches were formed of a stock of native
Jews, and partly of a great number of Proselytes, for whom
Judaism had become the transition-point to Christianity, and
of persons who passed immediately from heathenism to
Christianity ; and with the Gentile portion of the church,
some Jews connected themselves who were distinguished from
the great mass of their unbelieving countrymen by their
susceptibility for the gospel. But by means of those who
were formerly proselytes and the Jewish Christians in the
churches, an intercourse with the Jews was kept up, and
hence arose those disturbances in these churches of which we
shall presently speak.
On leaving Galatia, Paul was at first uncertain in what
direction to turn, since new fields of labour opened to him on
different sides. At one time, he thought of going in a south
westerly direction, to Proconsular Asia, and afterwards of
passing in a northerly direction to Mysia and Bithynia ; but
either by an inward voice or a vision he received a monition
in saying, that Paul meant nothing else than what he mentions in the
10th verse; for in this latter passage, he only applies the general truth
— which the divine voice had assured him of in reference to the parti
cular object before mentioned — to everything which might contribute
to render him sensible of his human weakness. This application of the
principle, and the peculiar phraseology of Paul, lead us to suppose that
he meant to indicate something quite peculiar in the first passage. We
cannot indeed suppose that he would pray to be delivered from such suf
ferings as were essentially and indissolubly connected with his vocation.
But we must conclude that his prayers referred to something altogether
personal, which affected him not as an apostle, but as Paul ; though it
would be absurd, in the total absence of all distinguishing marks, to
attempt to determine exactly what it was.
PAUL'S SECOND MISSIONARY JOURNEY. 175
from the Divine Spirit, which caused him to abandon both
these plans. Having formed an intention of passing over to
Europe, but waiting to see whether he should be withheld or
encouraged by a higher guidance, he betook himself to Troas ;
and a nocturnal vision, in Avhich a Macedonian appeared
calling in behalf of his nation for his aid, confirmed his reso
lution to visit Macedonia. At Troas, he met with Luke the
physician, perhaps one of the Proselytes, who had been con
verted by him at Antioch, and who joined his band of com
panions in missionary labour. His medical skill would be
serviceable on many occasions for promoting the publication
of the gospel among the heathen. l The first Macedonian city
in which they stayed was Philippi, a place of some import
ance. The number of Jews here was not sufficient to enable
them to establish a synagogue. Probably there were only
Proselytes, who had a place for assembling surrounded with
trees, on the outside of the city, near the banks of the
Strymon, where they performed their devotions and the
necessary lustrations, a so-called Trpoasv^'i.2 If addresses
founded on passages in the Old Testament were not delivered
here as in the Jewish synagogue, and if Paul could not avail
himself of such a custom for publishing the gospel ; still the
Proselytes (especially females) assembled here on the Sabbath
for prayer, and ho would here meet those persons who were
in a state of the greatest preparation and susceptibility for
what he wished to communicate. Accordingly, early in the
morning on the Sabbath, he resorted thither with his com
panions, in order to hold a conversation on religious topics
with the women of the city who were here assembled for
prayer. His words made an impression on the heart- of
Lydia, a dealer in purple from the town of Thyatira in Lydia.
At the conclusion of the service, she and her whole family
1 We infer that Luke joined Paul at Troas, from his beginning1, in
Aets xvi. 10, to write his narrative in the first person — " We endeavou-red
to go," &c.
2 The expression in Acts xvi. 13, o5 eVo/if^ero, makes it probable that
this irgofffvxv was not a building, but only an enclosed place in the open
air, which was usually applied to this purpose : compare Tertullian, ad
Naf tones, i. 13, " The Orationes Literales of the Jews," and DeJejuniis,
e. 16, where he speaks of the widely-spread interest taken by the heatheu
in the Jewish ieasis; "Judaicum certe jejunium ubique celebratur;
quum omissis templis per omnes libros quocunque in aperto aliquando
jam preces ad cceluin niittunt."
17G PAUL'S SECOND MISSIONARY JOURNEY.
were baptized by him, and compelled him by her importunity
to take up his abode with his companions in her house.1 As
in this town there were few or no Jews, the adherents of
Judaism consisted only of proselytes ; thus Christianity met
in this quarter with no obstinate resistance ; and it would
have probably gained a still greater number of adherents,
without incurring the risk of persecution, if opposition had
not been excited, owing to the injury done to the pecuniary
interests of certain individuals among the Gentiles, by the
operation of the divine doctrine.
There was a female slave who, in a state resembling the
phenomena of somnambulism, was accustomed to answer un
consciously questions proposed to her, and was esteemed to
be a prophetess inspired by Apollo ;2 as in all the forms of
heathenish idolatry, the hidden powers of nature were taken
into the service of religion.3 This slave had probably frequent
opportunities of hearing Paul, and his words had left an im
pression on her heart. In her convulsive fits, these impressions
were revived, and mingling what she had heard from Paul
with her own heathenish notions, she frequently followed the
preachers when on their way to the Proseuche, exclaiming,
"These men are the servants of the Most High God, who
show unto us the way of salvation." This testimony of a
prophetess so admired by 'the people might have availed
much to draw their attention to the new doctrine ; but it
1 I can by no means admit, with some expositors of the Acts, that all
this took place before the beginning of the public exercises of devotion,
and that on the same day, as they were returning from the place where
Paul baptized Lydia, the meeting with this prophetess occurred on their
vray to the Proseuche. Luke's narrative in Acts xvi. 16, does not indi
cate that all these events took place on one day. The assertions of the
prophetess make it probable that she had often heard Paul speak.
3 On the common notion of the people, that the Pythian Apollo took
possession of such eyyaffTgi<jiv6ovs or irv6wvas, and spoke through their
mouth, see Plutarch, De Def. Oraculor. c. 9. Tertullian describes such
persons, Apologet. c. 23, "qui de Deo pati existimantur, qui anhelando"
(in a state of convulsive agony, in which the person felt himself power
fully impelled as by a strange spirit with a hollow voice) " praefantur."
3 Thus the oracles of the ancients, the incubations, and similar pheno
mena in the heathenism of the Society Isles in the South Sea. The
Priest of Oro, the God of War, uttered oracles in an ecstatic state of
violent convulsions, and, after his conversion to Christianity, could not
again put himself in such a state. See, on this subject, the late interest
ing accounts of this mission by Ellis, Bennet, &c.
PAUL'S SECOND MISSIONARY JOURNEY. 177
\vas very foreign from Paul's disposition to employ or endure
such a mixture of truth and falsehood. At first, he did not
concern himself about the exclamations of the slave. But as
she persisted, he at last turned to her, and commanded the
spirit which held her rational and moral powers in bondage,
to come out of her. If this was not a personal evil spirit,
still it was the predominance of an ungodlike spirit. That
which constitutes man a free agent, and which ought to rule
over the tendencies and powers of his nature, was here held in
subjection to them. l And by the divine power of that Saviour
who had restored peace and harmony to the distracted souls of
demoniacs, this woman was also rescued from the power of such
an ungodlike spirit, and could never again be brought into that
state. When, therefore, the slave could no longer practise her
arts of soothsaying, her masters saw themselves deprived of
1 We have no certain marks which will enable us to determine in
what light Paul viewed the phenomenon. It might be (though we
cannot decide with certainty) that he gave to the heathen notion, that
the spirit of Apollo animated this person, a Jewish form, that an evil
spirit or demon possessed her. In this case, he followed the universally
received notion, without reflecting at the moment any further upon it,
for this subject belonging to the higher philosophy of nature, was
far from his thoughts. He directed his attention only to the moral
grounds of the phenomenon. I am convinced, that the Spirit of truth
who was promised to him as an apostle, guided him in this instance to
the knowlqdge of all the truth which Christ appeared on earth to
announce, to a knowledge of every thing essential to the doctrine of
salvation. By this Spirit he discerned the predominance of the reign
of evil in this phenomenon ; and if an invisible power is here thought
to be operating, yet what is natural in the causes and symptoms is
not thereby excluded, even as the natural does not exclude the super
natural. Compare the admirable remarks of my friend Twesten in the
second volume of his Dogmatik, p. 355, and what is said on demoniacs
in my Lebcn Jcsu. This spirit gave Paul the confident belief, that
as Christ had conquered and rendered powerless the kingdom of evil —
therefore by his divine power every thing which belonged to this king
dom would henceforth be overcome. In this faith, he spoke full of
divine confidence, and his word took effect in proportion to his faith.
But in the words of Christ, and the declarations of the apostle
respecting himself, I find no ground for admitting, that with this light
of his Christian consciousness, an error could by no possibility exist,
which did not affect the truths of the gospel, but belonged to a different
and lort-er department of knowledge ; such as the question, whether we
are to consider this as a phenomenon explicable from the nature of the
human soul, its natural powers and connexion with a bodily organiza
tion, or an effect of a possession by a personal evil spirit.
VOL. I. N
178 FAUL'S SECOND MISSIONARY JOURNEY.
the gains which they had hitherto obtained from this source.
Enraged, they seized Paul and Silas, and accused them before
the civil authorities, the Duumvirs,1 as turbulent Jews, who
were attempting to introduce Jewish religious practices into
the Roman colony, which was contrary to the Roman laws,
though the right was guaranteed to the Jews of practising
their national cultus for themselves without molestation.
After they had been publicly scourged without further exami
nation, they were cast into prison. The feeling of public
ignominy and of bodily pain, confinement in a gloomy prison,
where their feet were stretched in a painful manner, and
fastened in the stocks (nervus),3 and the expectation of the
ill-treatment which might yet await them — all this could not
depress their souls ; on the contrary, they were rather elevated
by the consciousness that they were enduring reproach and
pain for the cause of Christ. About midnight they united in
offering prayer and praise to God, when an earthquake shook
the walls of their prison. The doors flew open, and the fetters
of the prisoners were loosened. The keeper of the prison was
seized with the greatest alarm, believing that the prisoners
had escaped, but Paul and Silas calmed his fears. This earth
quake which gave the prisoners an opportunity of recovering
their liberty — their refusing to avail themselves of this oppor
tunity — their serenity and confidence under so many suffer
ings — all combined to make them appear in the eyes of the
astonished jailor as beings of a higher order. He fell at their
feet, and calling to mind what he had heard from the lips of
Paul and Silas respecting the way of salvation announced by
them, addressed them in similar language, and inquired what
he must do to be saved. His whole family assembled to hear
the answer, and it was a joyful morning for all. Whether tho
Duumvirs had become more favourably disposed by what they
had learnt in the mean time respecting the prisoners, or that
the jailor's report had made an impression upon them, they
authorized him to say that Paul and Silas might depart.
1 The name (rrparriyol which, is used in the Acts to designate these
magistrates, was anciently employed in the smaller Greek cities to
designate the supreme authorities. See Aristoteles Politic, vii. 8, ed>
Bekker. vol. ii. p. 1322, kv rcus /xi/cpo?s 7ro'Ae<ri /xt'a Trepl iravruv (apxty*
KaXovcri 8e ffTpar^yovs ical Trotepdpxovs.
2 Tertullian ad Martyres, c. 2. " Nihil crus sentit in nervo, quura
animus in coelo est."
PAUL'S SECOND MISSIONARY JOURNEY. 179
Had any thing enthusiastic mingled with that blessed inspira
tion which enabled Paul to endure all shame and all suffering
for the cause of the Lord, — he certainly would have done
nothing in order to escape disgrace, though it might have
been without injury and to the advantage of his calling, — or
to obtain an apology to which his civil privileges entitled him,
for the unmerited treatment he had received. How far were
his sentiments from what in later times the morals of monkery
have called humility ! Appealing to his civil rights, l he
obliged the Duumvirs, who were not justified in treating a
Roman citizen2 so ignominiously, to come to the prison, and,
as an attestation of his innocence, with their own lips to re
lease3 him and his companion. They now betook them
selves to the house of Lydia, where the other Christians of
the city were assembled, and spoke the last words of encourage
ment and exhortation. They then quitted the place, but Luke
and Timothy, who had not been included in the persecution,
stayed behind in peace. * Paul left in Philippi a church full
of faith and zeal — who shortly after gave a proof of their
affectionate concern for him by sending contributions for his,
maintenance, though he never sought for such gifts, but sup
ported himself by the labour ofMiis own hands.
Paul and Silas now directed their course to Thessalonica,
about twenty miles distant, the largest city of Macedonia, and
a place of considerable traffic, where many Jews resided.
Here they found a synagogue, which for three weeks Paul
visited on the Sabbath ; the hearts of many proselytes were
1 See the well-known words of Cicero, Act. II. in Verrem, v. 57.
" Jam ilia vox et imploratio civis Romanus sum, quae ssepe multis in.
ultimis terris opem inter barbaros et salutern attalit."
2 How Paul's father obtained the Roman citizenship we know not.
We have no ground for assuming, that Paul was indebted for it to hia
being born at Tarsus ; for though Dio Chrysostom, in his second \6yos
Tapa-iicbs, vol. ii. ed. Keiske, p. 36, mentions several privileges which
the Emperor Augustus had granted to the city of Tarsus as a reward
for its fidelity in the civil wars, yet it does not appear that Roman
citizenship was one of them, and allowing it to have been so, it may be
doubted whether it would have been conferred on a foreign Jewish
family, to which Paul belonged.
3 Silas also must have obtained by some means the right of a Roman
citizen.
4 Timothy rejoined Paul at Thessalonica or Bercea; and Luke at
a later period.
180 PAUL'S SECOND MISSIONARY JOURNEY.
won by his preaching ; and through them a way was opened
for publishing the gospel among the heathen in the city.
From what Paul says in 1 Thess. (i. 9, 10; ii. 10, II),1 we
find that he was not satisfied with addressing the proselytes
only once a-week at the meetings of the synagogue ; his
preaching would then have been confined to the small number
of Gentiles who belonged to the proselytes. At the meetings
of the synagogue, he could adopt only such a method and form
of address, as suited the standing-point of the Jews ; he must
have presupposed many things, and many topics he could not
develop, which required to be fully investigated, in order to
meet the peculiar exigencies of the heathen. But he knew, as
we see from several examples, how to distinguish the different
standing-points and wants of the Jews and Gentiles ; and hence,
we may presume, that he carefully availed himself of oppor
tunities to make use of these differences. The Gentiles,
whose attention was awakened by the proselytes, soon assem
bled in various places to hear him, and from them chiefly a
church was formed, professing faith in the one living God, as
well as faith in the Redeemer.
Agreeably to the declarations of Christ (Matt. x. 10, com
pared with 1 Cor. ix. 14), Paul recognised the justice of the
requirement, that the maintenance of the preachers of the
gospel should be furnished by those for whom they expended
their whole strength and activity, in order to confer upon
them the highest benefit. But since he was conscious that in
one point he was inferior to the other apostles, not having at
first joined himself voluntarily to the Redeemer, but having
been by the divine grace, as it were against his will, trans
formed from a violent persecutor of the church into an apostle,
he thought it his duty to sacrifice a right belonging to the
apostolic office, in order to evince his readiness and delight in
the calling which was laid upon him by a higher necessity;
(1 Cor. x. 16 — 18.) Thus also he found the means of pro-
1 Schrader in his Chronological Eemarks, p. 95, thinks that these
passages cannot possibly refer to Paul's first visit to Thessalonica, which
must have been a very short one. But there seems nothing improbable
in the supposition, that a man of such zeal and indefatigable activity in
his calling, would in the space of three or four weeks, effect so much,
and leave behind him BO vivid an impression of his character and
conduct, as is implied in these passages.
PAUL'S SECOND MISSIONARY JOURNEY. 181
moling his apostolic labours among the heathen ; for a
ministry so manifestly disinterested, sacrificing every thing for
the good of others, and undergoing all toils and deprivations,
must have won the confidence of many, even of those who
otherwise were disposed to suspect selfish motives in a zeal for
the best interests of others, which they could not appreciate.
He must have been more anxious to remove every pretext for
such a suspicion, because the conduct of many Jews who were
active in making proselytes, was calculated to cast such an
imputation on the Jewish teachers in general. The other
apostles in their youth, had earned their livelihood by a
regular employment, but yet one which they could not follow
in every place ; Paul, on the other hand, though destined to
be a Jewish theologian, yet according to the maxims prevalent
in the Jewish schools,1 along with the study of the law, had
learned the art of tent-making ; and easily gained a main
tenance by this handicraft, wherever he went, on account of
the mode of travelling in the East, and the manifold occasions
on which tents2 were used. While anxiety for the spiritual
wants of the heathen and the new converts to Christianity
wholly occupied his mind, he was forced to employ the night
in earning the necessaries of life for himself and his com
panions (1 Thess. ii. 9 ; Acts xx. 34), excepting as far as he
obtained some relief by the affectionate voluntary offerings of
the church at Philippi. But to him it was happiness to give
to others without receiving anything in return from them ;
from his own experience, he knew the truth of the Lord's
words, "It is more blessed to give than to receive." Acts xx. 35.
The apostle not only publicly addressed the church, but.
visited individuals in their families, and impressed on their
1 In the Pirkc Avoth, c. 2, § 2, y>» Tpn c? rrnn •TO'TJ rnr, " Beautiful is
the study of the law with an earthly employment, by which a man gains
his livelihood ;" and the reason alleged is, that both together are pre
ventives of ein, but in their absence, the] soul is easily ruined, and sin
finds entrance. And thus in monasteries, occupation with manual labour
had for its object, not simply to make provision for the support of the
body, but also to prevent sensuality from mingling with higher spiritual
employments.
3 Philo de Victimis, 836, ed. Francof. alywvSf airpixts, at Sopot vvw
<paiv6/j.(i>ai re Kal ffvppairr6/ji(vait <popi)Tal yeyAvaatv 6t>onr6pots oiKiai KO!
^aAicrra ro7s iv ffTparciais. This tends to show, though it does not prove,
that Paul chose this occupation from its being one for which his native
country was celebrated ; hence, too, we read of tentoria Cilicina.
182 PAUL'S SECOND MISSIONARY JOURNEY.
hearts the fundamental truths of the gospel in private con
versations, or warned them of the dangers that threatened
the Christian life.1 He endeavoured to cherish the hopes of
believers under the sufferings of their earthly life, by pointing
them to the period when Christ would come again to bring his
kingdom among mankind to a victorious consummation. This
period, for those who were conscious of having obtained re
demption, was fitted to be not an object of dread, but of
joyful longing hope. And during the first part of his apostolic
course, this decisive event appeared to Paul nearer than it
really was. For, in this respect, the times and seasons must
remain hidden till the epoch of their fulfilment, as Christ
himself declared. Matthew xxiv. 36.2 The first publishers of
the gospel were far from thinking, that the kingdom of
Christ would gradually, after a tedious process, by its own
inward energy, and the guidance of the Lord in the natural
developments of events, overcome the opposing powers of the
earth, and make them subserve its interests. Although
Christ, by the parables in which he represented the progress
of his kingdom on earth, had indicated the slowness of its
development, as in the parables of the grain of corn, of leaven,
of the wheat and the tares ; yet the meaning of these repre
sentations, as far as they were prophetical, and related to the
scale of temporal development, could only be rightly under
stood, when explained by the course of events. And herein
we recognise the divine intuition of Christ, which could pierce
through the longest succession of generations and ages. But
the apostles, to whom such an intuition was not granted,
thought indeed that, as their Lord had promised, the gospel
would spread among all the nations of the earth, by its divine
energy pervading and overcoming the world ; but they also
believed, that the persecutions of the ruling powers among
the Gentiles, would continually become more intense, till the
1 We do not see why the exhortations and warnings given to the
Christians at Thessalonica, to which Paul appeals in both his Epistles,
might not have been communicated during his first residence among
them ; for v/ould not Paul's wisdom and knowledge of human nature,
foresee the dangers likely to arise, and endeavour to fortify his disciples
against them 1 Schrader's argument deduced from this circumstance,
against the dates commonly offered to these two Epistles, does not
appear very weighty.
2 See Leben Jesu, pp. 557, 612, 3d ed. ,
PAUL'S SECOND MISSIONARY JOURNEY. 183
Saviour by his divine power should achieve the triumph of
the church over all opposing forces. A ad their enthusiasm
for the cause of the gospel, the knowledge of its divine
all-subduing power, and its rapid propagation in the first
age of the church, all contributed to conceal from their
human vision, the obstacles which withstood the verification
of their Lord's promise ; nor could they even estimate cor
rectly the population of the globe at that period.1 Hence it
may "be explained, how Paul, — notwithstanding his apostolic
character and his call to be an instrument for publishing
divine truth in unsullied purity — could embrace the issue of
all his hopes, the personal indissoluble union with that
Saviour whom he once persecuted, and now so ardently loved,
with an enthusiastic longing that outstripped the tedious
development of history. In this state of mind, he was im
pelled to exert all his powers, in order to hasten the dissemi
nation of the gospel among all nations. It was natural, that
the expectation of the speedy return of Christ should operate
most vigorously in the first period of his ministry, while he
was yet glowing with youthful inspiration. And thus under
the sufferings and shame which he endured at Philippi, the
anticipation of this divine triumph inspired him so much the
more ; for it resulted from the very nature of the divine
power of faith, that the confidence and liveliness of his hope
increased with the conflicts he was called to endure. Filled
with these sentiments, he came to Thessalonica, and with an
elevation of feeling, which naturally communicated itself to
other minds, he testified of the hope that animated him, and
raised him above all earthly sufferings. But as his inspiration
was far removed from every mixture of that fanaticism, which
cannot separate the subjective feeling and mental views, from
what belongs to faith, and the confidence of faith, — he by no
means spoke of the nearness of that great event as absolutely
determined ; he adhered with modest sobriety to the saying
of the Lord, that " it was not for men to know the times and
seasons." And with apostolic discretion, -he endeavoured to
warn the new converts lest, by filling their imaginations with
visions of the felicity of the approaching reign of Christ, and
1 These considerations must be taken into account, -when we find
Paul declaring in the latter period of his ministry, that the gospel was
published among all the nations of the earth.
184 PAUL'S SECOND MISSIONARY JOURNEY.
wrapping themselves in pleasing dreams, they should forget
the necessary preparations for the future, and for the impend
ing conflict. He foretold them that they had still many
sufferings and many struggles to endure, before they could
attain the undisturbed enjoyment of blessedness in the king
dom of Christ.
Though the apostle, in opposition to the pretensions of
meritorious works and moral self-sufficiency advanced by
Judaizing teachers, earnestly set forth the doctrine of justifi
cation, not by human works which are ever defective, but by
appropriating the grace of redemption through faith alone ;
yet he also deemed it of importance to warn the new converts
against another misapprehension to which a superficial con
version, or a confusion of the common Jewish notions of faith
with the Pauline might expose them ; namely, the false repre
sentation of those who held that a renunciation of idolatry,
and the acknowledgment of Jesus as the Messiah, without the
life-transforming influence of such a conviction, was sufficient
to place them on a better footing than the heathen, and to
secure them from the divine judgments that threatened the
heathen world.1 He often charged them most impressively,
to manifest in the habitual tenor of their lives the change
effected in their hearts by the gospel ; and that their crimi
nality would be aggravated, if, after they had been devoted to
God by redemption and baptism to serve him with a holy
life, they returned to their former vices, and thus defiled their
bodies and souls which had been made the temples of the
Holy Spirit. 1 Thess. iv. 6 ; ii. 12.
But the speedy and cordial reception which the gospel met
with among the Gentiles, roused the fanatical fury and
zealotry of many Jews, who had already been exasperated by
the apostle's discourse in the synagogue. They stirred up
some of the common people who forced their way into the
house of Jason a Christian, where Paul was staying. But as
they did not find the apostle, they dragged Jason and some
1 These are the vain words, the wol \6yoi, Eph. v. 6, of which Paul
thought it necessary so solemnly to warn the Gentile Christians. Hence,
warning them against such a superficial Christianity, he reminds them
that every vicious person resembles an idolater, and would be equally
excluded from the kingdom of God — that not merely for idolatry, but
for every unsubdued vice, unbelievers would be exposed to the divine
condemnation.
PAUL'S SECOND MISSIONARY JOURNEY. 185
other Christians before the judgment-seat. As on this occa
sion the persecution originated with the Jews, who merely-
employed the Gentiles as their tools, the accusation brought
against the publishers of the new doctrine was not the sume
as those made at Philippi ; they were not charged, as in other
cases, with having disturbed the Jews in the peaceful exercise
of their own mode of worship as guaranteed to them by the
laws. As Paul had laboured here for the most part among
the Gentiles, the grounds were too slight for supporting such
an accusation, especially as the civil authorities were not pre
disposed to receive it. At this time, a political accusation,
the crimen majestatis, was likely to be more successful, a
device that was often employed in a similar way, at a later
period, by the enemies of the Christian faith. Paul had
spoken much at Thessalonica of the approaching kingdom of
Christ, to which believers already belonged ; and by dis
torting his expressions, the accusation was rendered plausible.
He instigated people (it was averred) to acknowledge one
Jesus as supreme ruler instead of Caesar. But the autho
rities, when they saw the persons before them who were
charged with being implicated in the conspiracy, could not
credit such an accusation ; and after Jason and his friends
had given security that there should be no violation of the
public peace, and that those persons who had been the alleged
causes of this disturbance should soon leave the city, they
were dismissed.
On the evening of the same day, Paul and Silas left the
city, after a residence of three or four weeks. As Paul could
not remain there as long as the necessities of the newly
formed church required, his anxiety was awakened on its
behalf, since he foresaw that it would have to endure much
persecution from the Gentiles at the instigation of the Jews.
He had formed, therefore, the intention of returning thither
as soon as the first storm of the popular fuiy had subsided ;
1 Thess. ii. 18. Possibly he left Timothy behind, who had
not been an object of persecution, unless he met him first at
Beroea, after leaving Philippi. Paul and Silas now proceeded
to Bercea, a town about ten miles distant, where they met
with a better reception from the Jews ; the gospel here found
acceptance also with the Gentiles ; but a tumult raised by
Jews from Thessalouica forced Paul to leave the place almost
186 PAUL'S SECOND MISSIONARY JOURNEY.
immediately. Accompanied by some believers from Berosa,
he then directed his course to Athens. l
Though the consequences which resulted from the apostle's
labours at Athens were at first inconsiderable, yet his
appearance in this city (which in a different sense from Kome
might be called the metropolis of the world), was in real
importance unquestionably one of the most memorable signs
of the new spiritual creation. A herald of that divine doctrine
which, fraught with divine power, was destined to change the
principles and practices of the ancient world, Paul came to
Athens, the parent of Grecian culture and philosophy ; the
city to which, as the Grecian element had imbued the culture
of the West, the whole Roman world was indebted for its
mental advancement, which also was the central point of the
Grecian religion, where an enthusiastic attachment to all that
belonged to ancient Hellas, not excepting its idolatry, retained
a firm hold till the fourth century. Zeal for the honour of
the gods, each one of whom had here his temple and his
altars, and was celebrated by the master-pieces of art, ren
dered Athens famous throughout the civilized world. 2 It was
at first Paul's intention to wait for the arrival of Silas and
Timothy before he entered on the publication of the gospel,
as by his companions who had returned to Bercea, he had
sent word for them to follow him as soon as possible. But
when he saw himself surrounded by the statues, and altars,
1 It is doubtful whether Paul went by land or by sea to Athens, the
&s in Acts xvii. 14, may be understood simply as marking the direction
of his route. See Winer's Grammatik, 3d ed. p. 498. (4th ed. p. 559.)
Beroea lay near the sea, and this was the shortest. But the us may also
signify, that they took at first their course towards the sea, in order to
mislead the Jews (who expected them to come that way, and were lying
in wait for Paul in the neighbourhood of the port), and afterwards
pursued their journey by land. So we find on another occasion, when
Paul was about to sail from Corinth to Asia Minor, he found himself in
danger from the plots of the Jews, and preferred going by land ; Acts
xx. 3. The first interpretation appears to be the simplest and most
favoured by the phraseology. The ecos adopted by Lachmann [and
Tischendorff, Lips. 1841] appears to have arisen from a gloss.
2 Apollonius of Tyana (in Philostratus) calls the Athenians <f>i\oQvTai.
Pausanias ascribes to them (Attic, i. 17), rb els 6eov-s euo-e/Se?!/ &\\cav
TT\COV ; and (c. 24), rb Trfgi(T(r6Tegov TT}S els T& 0e?a crTrouSJjs. In the reli
gious system of the Athenians, there was a peculiar refinement of moral
sentiment, for they alone among the Greeks erected an altar to Pity,
eAeos, as a divinity.
PAUL'S SECOND MISSIONARY JOURNEY. 187
and temples of the gods, and works of art, by which the
honour due to the living God alone was transferred to crea
tures of the imagination— he could not withstand the impulse
of holy zeal, to testify of Him who called erring men to
repentance and offered them salvation. He spoke in the
synagogue to the Jews -and Proselytes, but did not wait as m
other cities till a way was opened by their means for pub
lishing the gospel to the heathen. From ancient times it
was customary at Athens for people to meet together under
covered porticoes in public places, to converse with one
smother on matters of all kinds, trifling or important ; and
then, as in the time of Demosthenes, groups of persons might
be met with in the market, collected together merely to hear
of something new.1 Accordingly, Paul made it his business'
to enter into conversation with the passers-by, in hopes of
turning their attention to the most important concern of
man. The sentiments with which he was inspired had nothing
in common with the enthusiasm of the fanatic, who is unable
to transport himself from his own peculiar state of feeling
to the standing-point of others, in order to make himself
acquainted with the obstacles that oppose their reception of
what he holds as truth with absolute certainty. Paul knew,
indeed, as he himself says, that the preaching of the crucified
Saviour must appear to the wise men of the world as foolish
ness, until they became fools, that is, until they were con
vinced of the insufficiency of their wisdom in reference to the
knowledge of divine things, and for the satisfaction of their
religiouswants ; 1 Cor. i. 23; iii. 18. But he was not ashamed,
as he also affirms, to testify to the wise and to the unwise, to
the Greeks and to the barbarians, of what he knew from his
own experience to be the power of '-God to save those that
believe; Rom. i. 16. The market to which he resorted was
near a portico of the philosophers. Here he met with philo
sophers of the Epicurean and Stoic schools. If we reflect
upon the relative position of the Stoics to the Epicureans,
that the former acknowledged something divine as the
animating principle in the universe and in human nature,
that they were inspired with an ideal model founded in the
1 As Demosthenes reproaches them in his oration against the epistle
of Philip ; i;/iets Se ouSei/ Troioujres ^fldSe KaQfofQa. KO.\ Tfvi-Qa.vuu.fvoi Kara
fty ayogav, efrt \eytTai veurfgov ', Acts xvii. 21.
188 PAUL'S SECOND MISSIONARY JOURNEY.
moral nature of man, and that they recognised man's religious
wants and the traditions that bore testimony to it ; — while on
the other hand, the latter, though they did not absolutely do
away with the belief in the gods, reduced it to something
inert, non-essential, and superfluous ; that they represented
pleasure as the highest aim of human pursuit, and that they
were accustomed to ridicule the existing religions as the off
spring of human weakness and the spectral creations of fear ; —
we might from such a contrast infer that the Stoics made a much
nearer approach to Christianity than the Epicureans. But it
does not follow that the former would give a more favourable
reception to the gospel than the latter, for their vain notion of
moral self-sufficiency was diametrically opposed to a doctrine
which inculcated repentance, forgiveness of sins, grace, and jus
tification by faith. This supreme God — the impersonal eternal
reason pervading the universe — was something very different
from the living God, the heavenly Father full of love whom
the gospel reveals, and who must have appeared to the Stoics
as far too human a being ; and both parties agreed in the
Grecian pride of philosophy, which would look down on a
doctrine appearing in a Jewish garb, and not developed in
a philosophic form, as a mere outlandish superstition. Yet
many among those who gathered around the apostle during
his conversations, were at least pleased to hear something
new ; and their curiosity was excited to hear of the strange
divinity whom he wished to introduce, and to be informed
respecting his new doctrine. They took him to the hill,
where the first tribunal at Athens, the Areopagus, was
accustomed to hold its sittings, and where he could easily
find a spot suited to a large audience.1 The discourse of
Paul on this occasion is an admirable specimen of his apo
stolic wisdom and eloquence : we here perceive how the
apostle (to use his own language) to the heathens became a
heathen, that he might gain the heathens to Christianity.
Inspired by feelings that were implanted from his youth in
the mind of a pious Jew, and glowing with zeal for the honour
of his God, Paul must have been horror-struck at the spectacle
1 The whole course of the proceedings and the apostle's discourse
prove that he did not appear as an accused person before his judges, in
order to defend himself against the charge of introducing religiones
peregrince et illicitcs. The Athenians did not view the subject in so
serious a light.
PAUL'S SECOND MISSIONARY JOURNEY. 189
of the idolatry that met him wherever he turned his eyes.
He might easily have been betrayed by his feelings into in
temperate language. And it evinced no ordinary self-denial
and self-command, that instead of beginning with expressions
of detestation, instead of representing the whole religious
system of the Greeks as a Satanic delusion, he appealed to the
truth which lay at its basis, while he sought to awaken in his
hearers the consciousness of God which was oppressed by the
power of sin, and thus aimed at leading them to the knowledge
of that Saviour whom he came to announce. As among the
Jews, in whom the knowledge of God formed by divine revela
tion led to a clear and pure development of the idea of the
Messiah, he could appeal to the national history, the law and
the prophets, as witnesses of Christ ; so here he appealed to
the undeniable anxiety of natural religion after an unknown
God. He began with acknowledging in the religious zeal of
the Athenians a true religious feeling, though erroneously
directed, an undeniable tending of the mind towards some
thing divine. 1 He begins with acknowledging in a laudatory
1 Much depends on the meaning attached to the ambiguous word
8fKn8a.ifj.uv, Acts xvii. 22. The original signification of this word, in
popular usage, certainly denoted something good — as is the case in all
language with words which denote the fear of God or of the gods — the
feeling of dependence on a higher power, which, if we analyse the reli
gious sentiment, appears to be its prime element ; although not exhaust
ing every thing which belongs to the essential nature of theism, and
although this first germ, without the addition of another element, may
give rise to superstition as well as faith. Now since, where the feeling
of fear (Sei\ia -xgbs TO Saipoviov, Theophrast.} is the ruling principle in
the conscience, superstition alone can be the result, it has happened that
this word ha? been, by an abuse of the term, applied to that perversion
of religious sentiment. This phraseology was then prevalent. Thus
Plutarch uses the word in his admirable treatise Tre^l Seto-tSai^oj/iaj Kal
adf^T-rjTos, in which he proceeds on the supposition, that the source of
superstition is that mode of thinking which contemplates the gods only
as objects of fear ; but he errs in this point, that he traces the origin ot
this morbid tendency to a wrong direction of the intellectual faculties.
Compare the profound remarks of Nitzsch, in his treatise on the reli
gious ideas of the ancients. The word SfiaiSainovia occurs in the New
Testament only in one other passage, Acts xxv. 19, where the Roman
procurator Festus, speaking to the Jewish King Agrippa of Judaism,
could not intend to brand it as superstition, but rather used the word as
a general designation for a foreign religion. He might, however, choose
this word, although not with a special design, yet not quite accidentally,
as one which was suited to express the subjective view taken by the
Eomans of Judaism. But Paul certainly used the word in a good sense,
190 PAUL'S SECOND MISSIONARY JOURNEY.
manner the strength of the religious sentiment among the
Athenians, l and adducing as a proof of it, that while walking
amongst their sacred edifices, he lighted 011 an altar dedicated
to an unknown God. 2
The inscription certainly as understood by those who framed
it, by no means proved that they were animated with the con
ception of an unknown God exalted above all other gods ; but
only that according to their belief they had received good or
for he deduced the seeking after the unknown God, which he doubtless
considered as something good, from this Scio-iSa^ovta, so prevalent
among the Athenians. He announced himself as one who would guide
their 5ei<Ti<$aiiJ.ovia, not rightly conscious of its object and aim, to a
state of clear self-consciousness by a revelation of the object to which it
thus ignorantly tended. Still it may be asked, whether Paul had not
still stronger reasons (though without perhaps reflecting deeply upon
them) for using the word 5ei<n8cu/ioz/ta, instead of another which he was
accustomed to use as the designation of pure piety. He uses the term
fvffGfrtiv immediately afterwards, where it plainly indicates the exercise
of the religious sentiment towards the true God.
1 In the comparative SeKriSai^o^eo-Te^ous, a reference is made to the
quality which, as we have before remarked, used to be attributed to the
Athenians in a higher degree than to all the other Greeks, — a fact which
the apostle would easily have learned.
2 If we examine with care all the accounts of antiquity, and compare
the various phases of polytheism, we shall find no sufficient ground to
deny the existence of such an altar as is here mentioned by Paul. The
inscription, as he cites it, and which proves his fidelity in the citation,
by no means asserts that it was an altar to the Unknown God, but only
an altar dedicated to an unknown God. Jerome, it is true, in the first
chapter of his Commentary on the Epistle of Paul to Titus, and in his
Epistola ad Magnum, thus cites the inscription of the altar — "Diis
Asise et Europaa et Libyae, Diis ignotis et peregrinis;" and he thinks
that Paul modified the form of the inscription to suit his application of
it. But Jerome, perhaps here as in other instances, judged too super
ficially. Several ancient writers mention the altars of the unknown
gods at Athens, but in a manner that does not determine the form of
the inscription. For example ; Pausanias, Attic, i. 4, and Eliac. v. 14,
jQw/iot Ot&v ovofj-a^ofj-evcav a.yvwa"T(av ; Apollonius of Tyana, in Philostratus,
vi. 3, where, like Paul, he finds, in the style of the inscription, an evi
dence of the pious disposition of the Athenians in reference to divine
things, that they had erected altars even to unknown gods;
ficauol '[Sgwrai. Isodorus of Pelusium, vi. 69, cannot be adduced
as an authority, since he merely speaks of conjectures. Diogenes Laertius,
in the life of Epimenides III., that, in the time of a plague, when they
knew not what God to propitiate in order to avert it, he caused
black and white sheep to be let loose from the Areopagus, and wherever
they laid down to be offered to the respective divinities (T<£
PAUL'S SECOND MISSIONARY JOURNEY. 191
evil from some unknown God, and this uncertainty in refer
ence to the completeness of their worship, enters into the
very essence of Polytheism, since, according to its nature, it
includes an infinity of objects. But Paul cited this inscrip
tion, in order to attach a deeper meaning to it, and to make
it a point of connexion, for the purpose of pointing out
a higher but indistinct sentiment, lying at the root of Poly- \
theism. Polytheism proceeds from the feeling of dependence
(whether founded on a sense of benefits conferred or of
evils inflicted) — on a higher unknown power, to which it is.
needful that man should place himself in the right relation ;
but instead of following this feeling, in order by means of
that in human nature which is supernatural and bears
an affinity to God, to rise to a consciousness of a God exalted
above nature, he refers it only to the powers of nature
operating upon him through the senses. That by which his
religious feeling is immediately attracted, and to which it
refers itself, without the reflective consciousness of man
making it a distinct object, is one thing : but that which the
mind enthralled in the circle of nature — doing homage to
the power over which it ought to rule — converts with re
flective consciousness into an object of worship, is another
thing. Hence Paul views the whole religion of the Athenians
as the worship of a God unknown to themselves, and presents
himself as a person who is ready to lead them to a clear self-
consciousness respecting the object of their deeply felt re
ligious sentiment.
" I announce to you Him," said he, " whom ye worship,
without knowing it.1 He is the God who created the world
OcoJ). Hence, says Diogenes, there are still many altars in Athens
without any determinate names. Although the precise inscriptions is
not here given, yet altars might be erected on this or a similar occasion,
which were dedicated to an unknown god, since they knew not what
god was offended and required to be propitiated, as Chrysostom has also
remarked in his 38th homily on the Acts.
1 We see from this how Paul psychologically explains the origin of
polytheism, or the deification of Nature ; how far he was from adopting
the Jewish notion of a supernatural magical origination of idolatry by
means of evil spirits, who sought to become the objects of religious
homage. The idea contained in these words of Paul forms also the
groundwork of his discourse at Lystra. We may also find a reference
to it in what he says, Rom. i. 19, of an original knowledge of God,
suppressed by the predominance of immoral Dropensities ; and Rom.
192 PAUL'S SECOND MISSIONARY JOURNEY.
and all that is therein. He, the Lord of heaven and earth,
dwelleth not in temples made by human hands, he requires
no human service on his own account — he, the all-sufficient
One, has given to all, life, and breath, and all things. He also
is the originator of the whole human race, and conducts its
development to one great end. He has caused all the nations
of the earth to descend from one man,1 and has not allowed
them to spread by chance over the globe ; for, in this respect,
every thing is under his control, he has appointed to each
people its dwelling-place, and has ordained the various eras
in the history of nations — their development in space and
time is fixed by his all-governing wisdom.2 Thus God has
revealed himself in the vicissitudes of nations, in order that
men may be induced to seek after him — to try whether they
could know and find him ; and they might easily know him,
since he is not far from any one of us, for in him our whole
existence has its root."3 As an evidence of the consciousness
i. 21, 25, that idolatry begins when religious sentiment cleaves to the
creature, instead of rising above nature to the Creator. On the first,
passage, see Tholuck's, and on the second lliickert's, excellent remarks.
1 This also is probably connected with what he says in opposition to
polytheistic views. On the polytheistic standing-point, a knowledge of
the unity of human nature is wanting, because it is closely connected with
a knowledge of the unity of God. Polytheism prefers the idea of distinct
races over whom their respective gods preside, to the idea of one race pro
ceeding from one origin. As the idea of one God is divided into a mul
tiplicity of gods, so the idea of one human race is divided into the mul
tiplicity of national character, over each of which a god is supposed to pre
side corresponding to the particular nation. On the other hand, the idea
of one human race, and their descent from one man, is connected with
the idea of one God. Thus Paul sets the unity of the theistic con
ceptions in contrast Avith the multiplicity existing in the deification of
nature. The Emperor Julian observed this contrast between the poly
theistic and monotheistic anthropology and anthropogony. See Julian,
Frcifjmentum ed. Spxinheim, t. i. 295. iravraxov a6p6u>v VSVCTCLVTUV Qeiav,
d\ TrAeiovs irpOTiXQov &vOpwiroi, TOLS yevedpxois 0eots airoK\r)pw6evT(s.
2 A peculiar relation of the parts of the earth inhabited by the
several nations to their peculiar character, as this is formed by native
tendencies and moral freedom ; the secret connexion between nature
and mankind ordained by God, and grounded in a higher law of
spiritual development.
3 The apostle's words are — lv avrq £wu.ev Ka\ Kivov^Qa Kal etr^eV.
Many expositors have so explained these words, as if they were intended
to denote the continual dependence of existence on God, as the pre
server of all things ; and excepting that lv is taken in an Hebraistic
sense = through, we might so understand the words in the pure Greek
PAUL'S SECOND MISSIONARY JOURNEY. 193
of this original relationship to God, he quotes the words of a
heathen, one of themselves, the poet Aratus, who came from
the native country of the apostle. " For we are the offspring
of God." ! After this appeal to the universal higher self-con
sciousness/ he goes on to say ; Since we are the offspring
of God, we ought not to believe that the divinity is like any
earthly material, or any image of human art. This negative
assertion manifestly includes a positive one ; we must strive
to rise to the divinity by means of that within us which
is related to him. Instead of carrying on the argument
against idolatry, the apostle leaves his hearers to decide for
themselves ; and presupposing the consciousness of sin —
without attempting to develop it — he proceeds with the
annunciation of the gospel. After God had with great long-
suffering endured the times of ignorance,2 he now revealed
idiom, for eli/cu ev TU>L may signify to depend wholly on some one,
as Iv <rol 7ckp ^o-jLicV, in the (Edipus Tyrannus of Sophocles, v. 314.
But this explanation does not suit the connexion of the passage ;
for Paul evidently is speaking here, not of what men have in common with
other creaturss, but of what distinguishes men from other creatures, that
by which they are especially related to God ; for as an evidence of this, " in
him we live, and move, and are," he quotes the words of Aratus, which
refer precisely to this relation of man to God. Hence, in order to find the
connexion according to this explanation, we must amplify the thought too
artificially ; thus, " We are distinguished above all other creatures in our
capacity for knowing this dependence on God." On the other hand, every
thing is connected in the most natural manner, if we consider these words,
" in him we live, move, and are," as pointing out the secret connexion of
men with God as " the Father of Spirits," in virtue of their spiritual
and moral nature. As Paul says nothing here which is peculiar to the
Christian system, but expresses a fact grounded on the general prin
ciples of theism, we may with great propriety compare it with a per
fectly analogous expression of Dio Chrysostom, which serves to confirm
this explanation. He says of men — Sire ov paKpav ouS' e|o; rou Qeiov
Si^KteTjUtVoi, d\\' iv at»T<j3 /j.eff(f iret^u/c^Tts eKflvca Travra.-)(j&Q(:V
^imr\a.^voi TTJS Qfias <£u<r«os. — De Dei Cognitione, vol. L ed. Reiske,
p. 384.
1 These words are quoted from the (paivo^vois of Aratus, v. 5, but
they are also to be found in the beautiful hymn of the stoic Cleanthus,
where they are used as an expression of Reason, as a mark of this
divine relationship : &c erou 7ct/> yevos ^ff^ev * iris ^.1/j.rfiJ.a \ax6vres
fjiovvoi. A similar sentiment occurs in the golden verses : Qtiov yao
yevos fan fipoTo?(riv.
2 Paul here gives us to understand, that not merely negative unbelief
in reference to truth not known, but only criminal unbelief of the
gospel offered to men, would be an object of the divine judgment. This
agrees with what he says in the first chapter of the Epistle to the
VOL. I. O
194 PAUL'S SECOND MISSIONARY JOURNEY.
the truth to all men, and required all to acknowledge it and
repent. With this was connected the annunciation of the
Kedeemer, of the forgiveness of sins to be obtained through
him, of his resurrection as the confirmation of his doctrine,
and a pledge of the resurrection of believers to a blessed life,
as well as of the judgment to be passed by him on mankind.1
As long as the apostle confined himself to the general doctrine
of Theism, he was heard with attention by those who had
been used to the lessons of Grecian philosophy. But when
he touched upon that doctrine which most decidedly marked
the opposition of the Christian view of the world to that
entertained by the heathens,2 when he spoke of a general
resurrection, he was interrupted with ridicule on the part of
some of his hearers. Others said, We would hear thee speak
at another time on this matter ; whether they only intended
to hint in a courteous manner to the apostle that they
wished him to close his address, or really expressed a seriuos
intention of hearing him again.3 There were only a few
individuals who joined themselves to the apostle, listened to
his further instructions, and became believers. Among these
was* a member of the Areopagite council, Dionysius ; who
became the subject of so many legends. The only authentic
tradition respecting him appears to be, that he was the prin
cipal instrument of forming a church at Athens, and became
its overseer.4
While Paul was at Athens, Timothy returned from Mace-
Romans, that Heathens as well as Jews would be judged according
to the measure of the law known to them ; and with what he says
in Rom. iii. 25, of the Trdpevis ru>v Trpoyeyorirw a/j.apT-rjfj.d.Tui'.
1 It is very evident from the form of the expressions in Acts xvii. 31,
as well as from verse 32, where the mention of the general resurrection
in Paul's speech is implied, that, in the Acts, we have only the sub
stance given of what he said.
2 This is expressed in the words of the heathen Octavius, in Minucius
Felix, c. xi. : " Coelo et astris, quae sic relinquimus ut invenimus, interi-
tum denuntiare, sibi mortuis, exstinctis, qui sicut nascimur et interimus,
seternitatem repromittere." The doctrine of the Stoics, of an avaaroi-
%eiWis, the regeneration of the universe in a new form after its
destruction, has no affinity to the doctrine of the resurrection, but
is strictly in accordance with the pantheistical views of the Stoics.
3 From the silence of the Acts, we are not to infer with certainty that
Paul never addressed these persons again.
4 See the account of the Bishop Dionysius of Corinth in Eusebius, in
his Eccles. Hist. iv. 23.
PAULS SECOND .MISSIONARY JOURNEY". ' 195
donia, l but the anxiety of Paul for the new church at Thessa-
lonica, induced him to send his young fellow-labourer thither,
1 On this point there is much uncertainty. According to the Acts,
Silas and Timothy first rejoined Paul at Corinth. But 1 Thess. iii. 1
seems to imply the contrary. This passage may indeed be thus under
stood, — that Paul sent Timothy, before his departure for Athens, to the
church in Thessalonica, although he knew that he should now be left in
Athens without any companions, for he wished to leave Silas in Bercea.
If he came from Beroea alone, he would rather have said, eg>xeo-0ai els
'A07jvas /j.6voi. But this he could not say, since he did [not depart to
Athens alone, but with other companions. Still the most natural in
terpretation of the passage is, that Paul, in order to obtain information
respecting the Thessalonians, preferred being left alone in Athens, and
sent Timothy from that city. Also, in the Acts, xvii. 16, it is implied
that he waited at Athens for the return of Silas and Timothy; for
though the words lv rdis 'AOrivais may be referred, not to ^/cSexojueVou,
but to the whole clause, still we cannot understand the passage other
wise. If we had merely the account in the Acts, we should be led to
the conclusion, by a comparison of the xvii. 16, and xriii. 5, that Silas
and Timothy were prevented from meeting with Paul at Athens, and
they first found him again in Corinth, as he had given them notice that
he intended to go thither from Athens. But by comparing it with
what Paul himself says, 1 Thess. iii. 1, we must either rectify or fill up
the account in the Acts. We learn from it that Timothy at least met
with Paul at Athens, but that he thought it necessary to send him from
thence to Thessalonica, and that he did not wait for his return from that
city to Athens, which may be easily explained. But Luke, perhaps,
had not so accurate a knowledge of all the particulars in this period of
Paul's history; he had perhaps learned only that Paul met again at Corinth
with Timothy and Silas, and hence he inferred, as he knew nothing of
the sending away of Timothy in the mean time from Athens to Thessa
lonica, that Paul, after he had parted from his two companions at
Beroea, rejoined them first at Corinth. As to Silas, it is possible that,
on account of the information he brought with him, he was sent back
by Paul with a special commission from Athene to Bercea, or, what is
more probable, that he had occasion to stay longer than Timothy at
Beroea, and hence could not meet him at Athens. It might also be the
case that Luke erroneously concluded, since Silas and Timothy both
first met Paul again at Corinth, that he left both at Bercea, — it would
be possible that he left only Silas behind and brought Timothy with
himself to Athens. It favours, though it does not establish this opinion,
that Paul, in 1 Thess. iii. 1, alleges as the reason for sending away
Timothy, not the unpleasant news brought by Timothy from Macedonia,
but the hindrances intervening, which rendered it impossible for him to
visit the church in Thessalonica according to his intention. Schnecken-
burger, in his learned essay on the date of the Epistles to the Thessa
lonians (in the Studien der Evangelischen Geistlichkeit Wiirtemburgs,
vol. vii. part 1, 1834, p. 139,) (with which in many points I am happy
to agree,) maintains that Paul might have charged his two companions
196 PAULS SECOND MISSIONARY JOURNEY.
that he might contribute to the establishment of their faith
and their consolation under their manifold sufferings ; for
Timothy had communicated to him many distressing accounts
of the persecutions which had befallen this church.
He travelled alone from Athens, and now visited a place
most important for the propagation of the gospel, the city of
Corinth, the metropolis of the province of Achaia. This city,
within a century and a half after its destruction by Julius
Caesar, once more became the centre of intercourse and traffic
to the eastern and western parts of the Roman Empire, for
which it was fitted by its natural advantages, namely, by its
two noted ports, that of Ke'yxpecu towards Lesser Asia, and
that of \f^a1ov towards Italy. Being thus situated, Corinth
became an important position for spreading the gospel in a
great part of the Roman Empire, and hence Paul chose this
city, as he had chosen others similarly situated, to be the
place where he made a long sojourn. But Christianity had
here also, at its first promulgation, peculiar difficulties to
combat, and the same causes which counteracted its reception
at first, threatened at a later period, when it had found en
trance, to corrupt its purity, both in doctrine and practice.
The two opposite mental tendencies, which at that time
especially opposed the spread of Christianity, were, on the one
side, an intense devotedness to speculation and the exercise of
to follow him quickly from Bercea, because lie intended soon to leave
Athens, where he expected no suitable soil for his missionary labours.
But we have no sufficient reason for supposing this. Paul found at
Athens a synagogue for the first scene of his ministry as in other cities ;
he felt himself compelled, as he says, to publish the gospel to Greeks
and to Barbarians ; he knew it was the power of God, which would con
quer the philosophical blindness of the Greeks as well as the ceremonial
blindness of the Jews, though he well knew that on both sides the obsta
cles were great. At all events, by some not improbable combinations,
the narrative in the Acts and the expressions of Paul may easily be
reconciled, and we are not therefore justified with Schrader in referring
the passage in 1 T'hess. iii. 1, to a later residence of Paul at Athens.
All the circumstances mentioned seem best to agree with the period of
his first visit. Paul having been obliged, contrary to his intention, to
leave Thessalonica early, wished on several occasions to have revisited
it ; his anxiety for the new church there was so great, and in his tender
concern for it, he showed the great sacrifice he was ready to make for it,
by saying that he was willing to remain alone at Athens. In later
times, when there was a small Christian church at Athens, this would
not have been so great a sacrifice.
PAUL'S SECOND MISSIONARY JOURNEY. 197
the intellect, to the neglect of all objects of practical interest,
which threatened to stifle altogether the religious nature of
men, that tendency which Paul designates by the phrase,
" seeking after wisdom ;" — and, on the other side, the sensuous
tendency mingling itself with the actings of the religious sen
timent ; the carnal mind which would degrade the divine into
an object of sensuous experience ; that tendency to which
Paul applies the phrase, " seeking after a sign" The first of
these tendencies predominated among the greater number of
those persons in Corinth who made pretensions to mental
cultivation, for new Corinth was distinguished from the old
city, chiefly by becoming, in addition to its commercial
celebrity, a seat of literature and philosophy, so that a certain
tincture of high mental culture pervaded the city.1 The
second of these tendencies was found among the numerous
Jews, who were spread through this place of commerce, and
entertained the common sensuous conceptions respecting the
Messiah. And finally, the spread and efficiency of Christianity
was opposed by that gross corruption of morals, which then
prevailed in all the great cities of the Roman Empire, but
especially in Corinth was promoted by the worship of Aphro
dite, to which a far-famed temple was here erected, and thus
consecrated the indulgence of sensuality, favoured as it was by
the incitements constantly presented in a place of immense
wealth and commerce. 2
The efficiency of Paul's ministry at Corinth was doubtless
much promoted by his meeting with a friend and zealous
advocate of the gospel, at whose house he lodged, and with
whom he obtained employment for his livelihood, the Jew
Aquila from Pontus, who probably had a large manufactory
in the same trade by which Paul supported himself. Aquila
does not appear to have had a fixed residence at Rome, but to
have taken up his abode, at different times, as his business
1 In the 2d century, the rhetorician Aristides says of this city : aotyov
8e 8^j Kal Kct0' 6$6v i\dui' &v eugois Kal iraga TUV atyvxwv paQois &v Kal
aKOVfffias TOGOVTOI Oyffavgol 'ypa/j./jid.Tcav Tregi iriiffav aur^v, 6iroi Kal IJLOVOV
airo0\(\)/tie TIS, Kal Kara ras 6Sovs aiiras Kal ras crrods' <ln T& yv^vdffiu^
ra 8i5aa-/co\6ro, Kalfia07JjuaTctTe Kal /o-Tog^uaTa. Aristid. in Neptunum,
ed. Dindorf, vol. i. p. 40.
^ 2 The rhetorician Dio Chrysostom says to the .Corinthians : ir6\iv
o«Ke?T6 TWV ovatav re Kal •y^evTjjweVcci/ fircKbpoSiToraTTiv. Orat. 37, vol. ii.
p. 119, ed. Reiske.
198 PAUL'S SECOND MISSIONARY JOURNEY.
might require, in various large cities situated in the centre of
commerce, where he found himself equally at home. But at
this time, he was forced to leave Rome against his will, by a
mandate of the Emperor Claudius, who found in the restless,
turbulent spirit of a number of Jews resident at Rome (the
greater part freed-men), l a reason or a pretext for banishing
all Jews from that city. 2
If Aquila was at that time a Christian, which will easily
account for his speedy connexion with Paul, this decree of
banishment certainly did not affect him as a Christian, but as
1 There was a particular quarter on the other side the Tiber inhabited
by Jews. See Philo-legat. ad Caium, § 23. rV Tre^av TOV Tififgeus
TTJS 'Pa^uTjs aTror6/j.riv Karexo/xeVT/v Kal OLKovp.ivi]v irgbs
2 The account of Suetonius in the Life of Claudius, c. 25, " Judaeos
impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes Roma expulit," is of little
service in historical investigations. If Suetonius, about fifty years after
the event itself, mixed up what he had heard in a confused manner of
Christ, as a promoter of sedition among the Jews, with the accounts of
the frequent tumults excited among them, by expectations of the
Messiah, — we are not justified in concluding, that this banishment of
the Jews had any real connexion with Christianity. Dr. Baur, in his
essay on the object and occasion of the Epistle to the Romans, in the
TuUnger Zeitschrift fur Theologie, 1836, part iii. p. 110, thinks, that
the disputes between the Jews and Christians in Rome, occasioned the
disturbances which at last brought on the expulsion of both parties,
and that this is the fact which forms the basis of the account. But
disputes among the Jews themselves, whether Jesus was to be acknow
ledged as the Messiah, would certainly be treated with contempt by the
Roman authorities, as mere Jewish religious controversies. See Acts
xviii. 15. And if Christians of Gentile descent, who did not observe
the Mosaic law, were then living at Rome, these, as a genus tertium,
would not be confounded with the Jews, and a decree of banishment
directed against the Jews would not affect them. They only became
subject to punishment by the laws against the religiones peregrinas et
novas. We can only suppose a reference to political disturbances
among the Jews, or to occurrences which might excite suspicions ot
this kind. And this account is of little service in fixing the chronology
of the apostolic history, for Suetonius gives no chronological mark.
Such a mark would be given, if we connect the banishment of the Jews
with the senatus consultum, de mathematicis Italia pellendis, for here
Tacitus (Annal. xii. 52), gives the date Fausto Sulla, Salvio Othone
Coss. = A. D. 52. But the chronological connexion of these two events
is very uncertain, as they proceeded from different causes. The banish
ment of the astrologers proceeded from suspicions of conspiracies
against the life of the Emperor, with which the banishment of the Jews
stood in no sort of connexion, although it might have its foundation in
the dread of political commotions.
PAUL'S SECOND MISSIONARY JOURNEY. 199
classed with the other Jews, in virtue of his Jewish descent,
and his participation in all the Jewish religious observances.
But if the gospel had already been propagated among the
Gentiles -at Rome, (which is not probable, for this took place
at a later period, by means ofrPaul's disciples, after his sphere
of action had been much extended,) the Gentile Christians,
who received the gospel free from Jewish observances, and
had not yet attracted notice as a particular sect, would not
have been affected by a persecution, which was directed
against the Jews, as Jews, on purely political grounds.
We cannot answer with certainty the questions, whether
Aquila, on his arrival at Corinth, was already a Christian ;
for it cannot be determined merely from the silence of the
Acts, that he was not converted by Paul. In any case, his
intercourse with the apostle had great influence in the forma
tion of his Christian views. Aquila appears from this time as
a zealous preacher of "the gospel, and his -various journeys and
changes of residence furnished him with many opportunities
for acting in this capacity. His wife Priscilla also distin
guished herself by her active zeal for the cause of the gospel,
so that Paul calls them both, in Rom. xvi. 3, his " helpers in
Christ Jesus"
We must suppose that the reception given in general at
Athens to the publication of the gospel, must- have left a
depressing effect on the mind of the apostle, as far as he was*
not raised above all depressing considerations by a conviction
of the victorious divine power of the gospel. Hence, he him
self says, that on his arrival at Corinth, he was at the utmost
remove from attaching any importance to anything that
human means, human eloquence, and human wisdom, could
furnish towards procuring an entrance for the publication of
the divine word : that he came and taught among them with
a deep sense of his human weakness — with fear and trembling
as far as his own power was concerned ; but at the same time,
with so much greater confidence in the power of God working
through his instrumentality. He had experienced at Athens,
that it availed him nothing to become a Greek to the Greeks,
in his mode of exhibiting divine truths, where the heart was
not open to his preaching, by a sense of spiritual wants. At
Corinth, he was satisfied with the simple annunciation of the
Redeemer, who died for the salvation of sinful men, without
200 PAUL'S SECOND MISSIONARY JOURNEY.
adapting himself, as at Athens, to the taste of the educated
classes in his style of address. The greater part indeed of
the persons with whom he came in contact at Corinth, were
not, as at Athens, people of cultivated minds, but belonging
to the lower class, who were destitute of all refinement ; for
even when Christianity had spread more widely among the
higher classes, he could still say, that not many distinguished
by human culture or rank were to be found among the
Christians, but God had chosen such as were despised by the
world, in order to exemplify in them the power of the gospel ;
1 Cor. i. 26. Among these people of the lower class, were
those who hitherto had been given up to the lusts that pre
vailed in this sink of moral corruption, but who, by the
preaching of the apostle, were awakened to repentance, and
experienced in their hearts the power of the announcement of
the divine forgiveness of sins; 1 Cor. vi. 11. Paul could
indeed appeal to the miracles by which his apostleship had
been attested among the Corinthians, 2 Cor. xii. 12 ; but yet
these appeals to the senses were not the means by which the
gospel chiefly effected its triumphs at Corinth. As the gospel
necessarily appeared as foolishness to the wisdom-seeking
Greeks, as long as they persisted in their conceit of wisdom,
so also to the sign-seeking Jews, as long as they persisted in
their carnal mind, unsusceptible of the spiritual operations of
what was divine, and required miracles cognizable by the
senses, the gospel which announced no Messiah performing
wonders in the manner their carnal conceptions had antici
pated, would always be a stumbling-block. That demon
stration which Paul made use of at Corinth, was the same
which in all ages has been its firmest support, and without
which all other evidences and means of promoting it will be
in vain, the " demonstration of the Spirit and of power" 1 Cor.
ii. 4 ; the mode in which the gospel operates, by its indwelling
divine power, on minds rendered susceptible of it, in con
sequence of the feeling of their moral necessities ; the demon
stration arising from the power with which the gospel operates
on the principle in human nature, which is allied to God, but
depressed by the principle of sin. Thus the sign-seeking Jews
who attained to faith, found in the gospel a " power of God "
superior to all external miracles, and the believers among the
wisdom-seeking Greeks found a divine wisdom, compared
PAUL'S SECOND MISSIONARY JOURNEY. 201
with which all the wisdom of their philosophers appeared as
nothing.
As was usual, Paul was obliged by the hostile disposition
with which the greater part of the Jews received his preaching
in the synagogue, to direct his labours to the Gentiles through
the medium of the Proselytes, and the new church was mostly
formed of Gentiles, to whom a small number of Jews joined
themselves. That he might devote all his time and strength
without distraction to preaching, he soon organized the small
company of believers into a regular church, and left the
baptism of those who were brought to the faith by his
preaching, to be administered by those who were chosen to
fill the offices in the church ; 1 Cor. i. 16 ; xvi. 15.
In the mean time, the acceptance which the gospel here
found among the heathen, powerfully excited the rage of the
Jews, and they availed themselves of the arrival of the new
Proconsul Annseus Gallic, a brother of Seneca the philosopher,
to arraign Paul before his tribunal. Since, by the laws of the
empire, the -right was secured to them of practising their own
religious institutions without molestation, they inferred, that
whoever caused division among them by the propagation of
doctrines opposed to their own principles, encroached on the
enjoyment of their privileges, and was amenable to punish
ment. But the Proconsul, a man of mild disposition, ! showed
no desire to involve himself in the internal religious con
troversies of the Jews, which must have appeared to a Roman
statesman as idle disputes about words ; and the Gentiles
themselves, on this occasion, testified their disapprobation of
the accusers. The frustration of this attempt against the
apostle enabled him to continue his labours with less an
noyance in this region, so that their influence was felt
through the whole province of Achaia, (1 Thess. i. 8 ; 2 Cor.
i. 1,) whether he made use of his disciples as instruments, or
suspended his residence at Corinth, by a journey into other
parts of the province, and then returned again to the principal
scene of his ministry. 2
1 Known by the name of the dulcis Gallio. Seneca, Praefat. Natural,
quest, iv. " Nemo mortalium uni tarn dulcis est, quam hie omnibus."
3 See 2 Thess. i. 4, where Paul, in an epistle written during the latter
part of his residence at Corinth, says, that in several churches, and there
fore not merely in the Corinthian, he had spoken with praise of the faith
and zeal of the Thessalonian church.
202 PAUL'S SECOND MISSIONARY JOURNEY
When he had been labouring for some time in these parts,
Timothy returned from Thessalonica, by whom he received
accounts of the state of the church there, which were far from
pleasing in every respect. The faith of the church had indeed
been steadfast under its persecutions, and their example and
zeal had promoted the further spread of the gospel in Mace
donia, even to Achaia, but many had not been preserved pure
from the corruption of heathen immorality. The expectation
of Christ's reappearance had taken in the minds of many an
enthusiastic direction, so that they neglected their stated em
ployments, and expected to be maintained at the expense of
their more opulent brethren. Prophets rose up in their
assemblies, whose addresses contained much that was enthu
siastic ; while others, who were on their guard against these
enthusiastic exhibitions, went so far in an opposite direction
as to put in the same class the manifestations of a genuine
inspiration. Probably from a dread of enthusiasm, they could
not endure that any person who felt himself inwardly called,
should give free utterance to his sentiments in the meetings
of the church, for to this Paul's exhortation appears to refer,
in 1 Thess. v. 19, "Quench not the Spirit." On all these
accounts, he considered it necessary to address an epistle of
encouragement and exhortation to this church. *
1 In this epistle, he evidently assumes, that the manner of his coming
from Philippi to Thessalonica was still fresh in the remembrance of the
church, so that he alludes to only one residence among them, after his
arrival from Philippi. What Paul says in 1 Thess. i. 9, he could only
say at a period which was shortly subsequent to his departure from
Thessalonica. Hence, it is certain, that the epistle was written at that
, juncture, and that it is the first among the Pauline epistles which have
reached us, an opinion, with which its whole complexion well agrees.
The reasons against this view, maintained by Schrader, some of which
we have mentioned and endeavoured to refute, are not convincing. The
anxiety of many persons in reference to their deceased friends (iv. 13,)
proves indeed, that some of the first Christians at Thessalonica were
already dead, but certainly does not justify the conclusion, that this
church must have already existed a long time ; for within a compara
tively short time, many, especially those who were in years or in
declining health at their conversion, might have died. Also the argu
ment, that Paul, in this epistle, supposes the existence of a church
organized in the usual manner with Presbyters, will prove nothing
against the early composition of this epistle. For why should not
Paul have accomplished all this during his short stay at Thessalonica,
or put matters in a train for its being done soon after his departure 1
It is evident, from Acts xiv. 23, how important he deemed it to give
PAUL'S SECOND MISSIONARY JOURNEY. 203
In his epistle, he reminds the church of the manner in
which he conducted himself among them, the example of
manual industry which he set, and the exhortations which he
imparted to them. He calmed their anxiety respecting the
fate of those who had died during this period. He warned
against making attempts to determine the second coming of
Christ. That critical moment would come unexpectedly; the
exact time could be ascertained by no one ; but it was the
duty of Christians to be always prepared for it. They were
not to walk in darkness, lest that day should overtake them
as a thief in the night ; as children of the light, they ought to
walk continually in the light and the day ; and to watch over
themselves, that they might meet the appearance of the Lord
with confidence.
After a time, Paul learned that the epistle had not attained
its end ; that the enthusiastic tendency in the Thessalonian
church had continued to increase. In his former epistle, he had
considered it necessary to guard them against both extremes ;
to warn them against the entire suppression of free prophetic
addresses, as well as against receiving every thing as divine
which pretended to be so, without examination. The higher life
was to be developed and expressed freely without harassing
restrictions ; but all claims to inspiration ought to be sub
mitted to sober examination. l He must, therefore, have had
the usual constitution to the churches as soon as they were formed ; and
this must have been more especially the case with a church which he left
in such critical circumstances, even apart from persecutors. Indeed, if
the rule laid down in the First Epistle to Timothy, that no novice in
Christianity should be chosen to the office of presbyter, had been from
tho beginning an invariable principle, we might conclude, that so new a
church, which must consist entirely of novices, could have no presbytery.
But there is nothing to support this conclusion, and the circumstances
of the primitive apostolic age are against it. The rules given in that
epistle, as well as many other points, tend to prove that it was written
in the latter part of Paul's life, and in reference to a church not newly
organized. And what we find in Philip, iv. 6, by no means obliges us
to assume a second visit of Paul to Thessalonica, after which both
epistles were written. He there says, that during the time of the first
publication of the gospel among the heathen, (which cannot be referred
to a later period,) when he left Macedonia, no church excepting that
at Philippi had sent him a contribution— first at Thessalonica before he
left Macedonia, and then once or twice at Corinth, during his longer
sojourn there. 2 Cor. xi. 9.
1 It appears to me that 1 Thess. v. 21, altogether relates to what im
mediately precedes—" prove all things in the communications of the
204 PAUL'S SECOND MISSIONARY JOURNEY.
cause to suspect danger from this quarter, even had he not
received more exact information. But he was subsequently
informed, that persons had come forward in the church who
professed to have received revelations to the effect that the ap
pearance of the Lord was close at hand. They also endeavoured
to strengthen their assertions by distorting certain expressions
of the apostle, which he had used during his residence at Thes-
salonica. But now since the epistle of Paul was so plainly
opposed to the enthusiastic tendency which aimed at fixing the
exact time of Christ's second coming, one of the promoters
of this error ventured so far as to forge another epistle in
Paul's name, which might serve to confirm this expectation,
in which probably he took advantage of the circumstance,
that the apostle in his first epistle had satisfied himself
with urging what was of practical importance without
giving a decided opinion on the nearness or remoteness
of that great event.1 Such forgeries were not at all
uncommon in this century after the beginning of the
Alexandrian period of literature, and their authors were
very adroit in justifying such deceptions for the purpose of
giving currency to certain principles and opinions.2 This
enthusiastic tendency also operated injuriously in producing
idleness, and a neglect of a person's own affairs, united with a
prying, intermeddling curiosity respecting the concerns of
others. Paul, therefore, thought it necessary to write a
second epistle to Thessalonica.3 In this epistle, for the pur-
prophets, and retain whatever is good ; " but in verse 22, he makes a
transition to a general remark, " that they should keep themselves at
a distance from every kind of evil," with which his prayer for the sancti-
fication of the whole man naturally connects itself.
1 The passage in 2 Thess. ii. 2, might be so understood, as if only the
statements in the First Epistle had been misrepresented ; and it is cer
tainly possible to imagine, that they had so misapplied Paul's comparison
of a thief in the night, as if he expected the appearance of Christ to be
an event close at hand, and only meant to say that the point of time
could not be given more distinctly. But these words of Paul would
naturally be understood of the forgery of a letter in his name, and the
manner in which he guards against similar forgeries, by a postcript in
his own hand, favours this opinion.
2 The Bishop Dionysius very much lamented the falsification of
letters which he had written to various churches. Euseb. iv. 23.
3 He had at that time probably travelled from Corinth into Achaia,
and founded other churches. Already he had sustained many conflicts
with the enemies of the gospel ; he had occasion to request the inter-
PAUL'S SECOND MISSIONARY JOURNEY. 205
pose of guarding them against the hasty expectation of that
last decisive period, he directed their attention to the signs of
the times which would precede it. The revelation of the evil
that opposed itself to the kingdom of God — a self-idolatry
excluding the worship of the living God — would first rise to
the highest pitch. The power of the delusion, by a hypocri
tical show of godliness, and by extraordinary power, appa
rently miraculous, would deceive those, who were not disposed
to follow the simple, unadulterated truth. The rejection of
the True and the Divine would be punished by the power of
falsehood. Those persons would be ensnared by the arts
of deception, who, because they had suppressed the sense
of truth in their hearts, deserved to be deceived, and by their
own criminality had prepared themselves for all the deceptions
of falsehood. Then would Christ appear, in order by his
victorious divine power to destroy the kingdom of evil, after
it had attained its widest extension, and to consummate the
kingdom of God. As signs similar to those which prognos
ticate the last decisive and most triumphant epoch, are
repeated in all the great epochs of the kingdom of God, as it
advances victoriously in conflict with the kingdom of evil,
Paul might believe that he recognised in many signs of his
own time, the commencement of the final epoch. By the
light of the divine Spirit, and according to the intimations of
Christ1 himself, he discerned the general law of the develop
ment of the kingdom of Christ, which is applicable to all the
great epochs down to the very last ; but he was not aware
that similar phenomena must often recur until the arrival of
the final crisis. 2
cessory prayers of the churches, that he might be delivered from the
machinations of evil-minded men ; for such were not wanting, who
were unsusceptible of receiving the gospel ; 2 Thess. iii. 2. This
reminds us of the accusations made by the Jews against Paul.
1 See Leben Jesu, pp. 558, 612.
2 When persons have attempted to determine with exactness the
signs of the times given by Paul, they have failed in many points. In
the first place, they have sought for the appearances to which the
apostle refers in later ages, while Paul refers to appearances in his own
age, or to those which they seemed to forebode. In other important
periods, which preceded remarkable epochs for the development of the
kingdom of Christ, signs might be found similar to those which Paul
has here described. Still we should not be justified in saying that
these signs in this particular form were consciously present to Paul's
206 PAUL'S SECOND MISSIONARY JOURNEY.
As Paul was unexercised in writing Greek, and, amidst his
numerous cares and labours, instead of writing his epistles
with his own hand, dictated them, as was a usual practice
among the ancients, to an amanuensis, letters could be more
easily forged in his name. Perhaps he had already adopted
the plan of adding a few words of salutation with his own
hand, in order to give the churches a special proof of his
affectionate sympathy^ Such an autograph addition would
now be so much the more necessary for the purpose of pre
venting falsifications of his epistles ; accordingly, in this
epistle to the Thessalonians he expressly notices this circum
stance, that they might in future know all the epistles that
really were his own production. l
mind. And thus we should fall into error, if we expected to find what
is anti-Christian only in certain particular appearances of the Ecclesias
tical History, instead of recognising in these appearances a Christian
truth lying at their basis, and the same anti-Christian spirit (by which
the Christian principle is here disturbed, and at last wholly obscured)
likewise in other appearances. When too, these signs have been looked
for in the actual situation of the apostle, the defectiveness of our know
ledge of his situation, and of the appearances peculiar to his times, has
been forgotten. Or, instead of estimating the great views respecting
the development of the kingdom of God, which the apostle here unfolds,
according to the ideas contained, the kernel has been thrown away, and
the shell retained, and they have been compared with the Jewish fables
respecting Antichrist.
1 From these words of Paul, 2 Thess. iii. 17, we cannot infer with
Schrader, that Paul must have already written many epistles (to the
Thessalonians), and, therefore, that this could not be the second ; for if
Paul had determined now for the first time to employ this precaution
against the falsification of his epistle, he might certainly thus express
himself; it was not necessary to use the future co-rot, and yet Paul
might have written many epistles before this. For. might he not
already have written epistles to the churches in Cilicia, and Syria, and
others lately founded by him, as well as to individuals ] We cannot
certainly maintain, that the whole correspondence of the great apostle,
who was so active and careful in every respect, has come down to us.
Lastly, the forgery of a letter under his name was still easier when only
a few, than when many of his epistles were extant. Therefore the
proofs fail which are employed partly for the later origin, partly for the
spuriousness of the epistle. And as to the salutation added by Paul as
a mark of his handwriting, it only follows that, under the existing
circumstances, he determined to add such a mark of his handwriting to
all his epistles, but by no means that, under altered circumstances, he
adhered to this resolution ; nor could we conclude with certainty, that
in all those epistles in which Paul has not expressly remarked that the
salutation was penned by him, the benediction at the close was really
PAUL'S JOURNEY TO ANTIOCH. 207
Thus Paul laboured during another half-year for the spread
of Christianity in these parts, and then concluded the second
period of his ministry among the heathen, which began with
the second missionary journey. We are now arrived at a
resting-place, from which we shall proceed to a new period in
his ministry, and in the history of the propagation of the
gospel among the Gentiles.
CHAPTER VII.
THE APOSTLE PAUL'S JOURNEY TO ANTIOCH, AND HIS RENEWED MISSIONARY
LABOUBS AMONG THE HEATHEN.
AFTER Paul had laboured during another half-year for the
establishment of the Christian church in Corinth and Achaia,
he resolved, before attempting to form new churches among
the heathen, to visit once more that city which had been
hitherto the metropolis of the Christian-Gentile world, An-
tioch, where possibly he had arranged a meeting with other
publishers of the gospel. This was no doubt the principal,
but probably not the only, object of his journey. He felt it
to be very important to prevent the outbreak of a division
between the Jewish and the Gentile Christians, and to take
away from the Jews and Jewish Christians the only plausible
ground for their accusation, that he was an enemy of their
nation and the religion of their fathers. On this account, he
resolved to revisit at the same time the metropolis of Judaism,
in order publicly to express his gratitude to the God of his
fathers in the temple at Jerusalem, according to a form much
approved by the Jews, and thus practically to refute these
imputations. There was at that time among the Jews a reli
gious custom, arising most probably from a modification of
the Nazarite vow, that those who had been visited with sick
ness or any other great calamity vowed, if they were restored,
not in his handwriting. When once that peculiar practice and his
handwriting had become generally known among the churches, he
might make such an addition, without expressly mentioning that it was
written by himself.
208 PAUL'S JOURNEY TO ANTIOCH.
to bring a thank-offering to Jehovah in the temple, to abstain
from wine for thirty days, and to shave their heads.1 Paul
had probably resolved, on the occasion of his deliverance from
some danger during his last residence at Corinth, or on his
journey from that city,2 publicly to express his grateful
acknowledgments in the temple at Jerusalem. The form of
his doing this was in itself a matter of indifference, and in the
spirit of Christian wisdom, he felt no scruple to become in
respect of form, to the Jews a Jew, or to the Gentiles a Gen
tile. When he was on the point of sailing with Aquila to
Lesser Asia, from Cenchrsea, he began the fulfilment of his
vow.3 He left his companion with his wife behind at
Ephesus, whither he promised to return, and hastened to
Jerusalem, where he visited the church, and presented his
1 Josephus, de Bello Jud. ii. 15, rovs yap % v&au KaTcnrovoujueVous tf TUTIV
&\\ais ai/a7/cats eOos e#xe<r0cu Trpb A' ypfp&v, rjs OTroSwcreu/ jueAAotec Qvarias,
otvov re d(£e|e(T0ai KO.} ^vp^craffQai ras Kop.as. It appears to me quite
necessary to change the aorist in the last clause into the future
£vp-f)<recrOcu ; and I would translate the passage thus — " they were
accustomed to vow that they would refrain from wine and shave their
hair thirty days before the presentation of the offering." From com
paring this with the Nazarite vow, we might indeed conclude that the
shaving of the hair took place at the end of thirty days, as Meyer
thinks in his commentary ; but the words of Josephus do not agree
with this supposition, for we cannoi.T)e allowed to interpolate another
period before the ^vpfoeffdai, " and at the end of these thirty days."
Also what follows in Josephus is opposed to it, and Paul's shaving his
hair several weeks before his arrival at Jerusalem, will not harmonize
with such a supposition.
2 From how many dangers he was rescued, and how much would be
required to complete the narrative given in the Acts, we learn from
2 Cor. xi. 26, 27.
3 Unnecessary difficulties have been raised respecting Acts xviii. 18.
Paul in the 18th, and the verse immediately following, is the only sub
ject to which every thing is referred ; and the words relating to Aquila
and Priscilla form only a parenthesis. All that is here expressed must
therefore be referred to Paul and not to Aquila, who is mentioned only
incidentally. Schneckenburger, in his work on the Acts, p. 66, finds a
reason for mentioning such an unimportant circumstance respecting
a subordinate person in this, that a short notice of a man, who for half
a year lived in the same house as Paul, would serve as an indirect justi
fication of the apostle against the accusations of his Judaizing oppo
nents : but this is connected with the whole hypothesis, of which, for
reasons already given, I cannot approve.
4 Besides, Aquila could not have taken such a vow, because he did
not travel to Jerusalem, where the offering ought to be presented.
We must therefore suppose that he had made a vow of another kind,
PAUL'S JOURNEY TO ANTIOCH. 209
offering in the temple.1 He then travelled to Antioch, where
he stayed a long time, and met with Barnabas, and other
friends and former associates in publishing the gospel. The
that he would not allow his hair to be cut till he had left Corinth in
safety, like the Jews who bound themselves by a vow to do or not
to do something till they had accomplished what they wished, as, for
example, not to take food ; compare Acts xxiii. 14, and the legends
from the evayyeXiov naO' 'Efipaiovs, in Jerome de v. i. c. ii. • But such
unmeaning folly no one can attribute to Aquila. And Luke would
hardly have related any thing so insignificant of Aquila, who was not
the hero of his narrative. But Meyer thinks he has found a special
proof that this relates not to Paul but to Aquila; because, in Acts
xviii. 18, the name of Priscilla is mentioned not as it is in v. 2 and 26,
and contrary to the usage of antiquity, with a design to make the
reference here designed to Aquila more pointed. We might allow some
weight to this consideration, if we did not find the same arrangement
of the names in Rom. xvi. 3, and 2 Tim. iv. 19. Hence we shall find a
common ground of explanation for what appears a striking deviation
from the customs of antiquity, that although Priscilla was not a public
instructress, which would have been contrary to the laws of the church,
yet she was distinguished even more than her husband for her Christian
knowledge, and her zeal for the promotion of the kingdom of God ;
that in this respect Paul stood in a more intimate relation, a closer
alliance of spirit to her, as Bleek has suggested in his Introduction to
the Epistle to the Hebrews, p. 422. And thus we find in this
undesigned departure from the prevailing usage, on a point so un
important in itself, an indication of the higher dignity conferred BO
directly by Christianity on the female sex.
1 The words in Acts xviii. 21 cannot prove that Paul travelled to
Jerusalem, for the original expression only makes it highly probable.
" I will return to you again, God willing ; " and all the rest is only
a gloss. If, therefore, we do not find the journey to Jerusalem indicated
in the avaftas and KOT^TJ of v. 22, we must assume that Paul on this
journey came only as far as Antioch, and not to Jerusalem, and then
the interpretation of Acts xviii. 18, given in the text, must be
abandoned. It is also remarkable that Luke, in referring to Paul's
sojourn at Jerusalem, should mention only his saluting the church, and
say nothing of the presentation of his offering ; and that James, who,
on Paul's former visit to Jerusalem, had advised him to such a line
of conduct, should not have appealed to the example given by himself
of such an accommodation to the feelings of the Jews. But Luke
is never to be regarded as the author of a history complete in all
its parts, but simply as a writer who, without historical art, put
together what he heard and saw, or what became known to him by the
reports of others. Hence he narrates several less important cir
cumstances, and passes over those which would be more important for
maintaining the connexion of the history. Also, to a reader familiar
with Jewish customs, it might be sufficiently clear that Paul, according
to what is mentioned in xviii. 18, must have brought an offering
to Jerusalem. At all events, if we wish to refer v. 22 only to Ceesarca,
VOL. I. P
210 PAUL'S JOURNEY TO ANTIOCH.
apostle Peter also joined the company of preachers of the
gospel here assembled, who beheld the apostles of the Jews
and the apostle of the Gentiles united in true Christian
fellowship with one another, in accordance with the spirit of
the resolutions adopted by the Council at Jerusalem.
But this beautiful unanimity was disturbed by some Ju-
daizing zealots, who came from Jerusalem probably with an
evil design, since what they had heard of the free publication
of the gospel among the heathen was offensive to their con
tracted feelings. For a considerable time the pharisaically-
minded Jewish Christians appeared to have been silenced by
the apostolic decisinos, but they could not be induced to give
up an opposition so closely allied with a mode of thinking
exclusively Jewish, against a completely free and independent
gospel. The constant enlargement of Paul's sphere of labour
among the heathen, of which they became more fully aware
by his journeys to Jerusalem and Antioch, excited afresh
their suspicion and jealousy. Though they professed to be
delegates sent by J.ames from Jerusalem,1 it by no means
follows that they were justified in so doing ; for before this
time such Judaizers had falsely assumed a similar character.
These persons were disposed not to acknowledge the un-
circunicised Gentile Christians, who observed no part of the
Mosaic ceremonial law, as genuine Christian brethren, as
brethren in the faith, endowed with privileges equal to their
own in the kingdom of the Messiah. As they looked upon
them as still unclean, they refused to eat with them. The
same Peter who had at first asserted so emphatically the
equal rights of the Gentile Christians, and afterwards at the
last apostolic convention had so strenuously defended them,
now allowed himself to be carried away by a regard to
his countrymen, and for the moment was faithless to his
principles. We here recognise the old nature of Peter,
which, though conquered by the spirit of the gospel, was
still active, and on some occasions regained the ascendency.
The same Peter who, after he had borne the most impressive
the avafias must be superfluous, and the Karefi-f] would not suit the
geographical relation of Csesarea to Antioch.
1 This is not necessarily contained in the words rives a.ir'b 'laKc^jSou,
which may simply mean that these persons belonged to the church
at Jerusalem, over which James presided.
PAUL'S JOURNEY TO ANTIOCH. 211
testimony to the Redeemer, at the sight of danger for an
instant denied him. The example of an apostle whose cha
racter stood so high, influenced other Christians of Jewish
descent, so that even Barnabas withdrew from holding inter
course with Gentile Christians. Paul, who condemned what
was evil without respect of persons, called it an act of
hypocrisy. He alone remained faithful to his principles, and
in the presence of all administered a severe reprimand to
Peter, and laid open the inconsistency of his conduct.
" Why, if thou thyself," he said, " although thou art a Jew,
hast no scruple to live as a Gentile with the Gentiles, why
wilt thou force the Gentiles to become Jews ] We are born
Jews — we, if the Jews are right in their pretensions, were not
sinners like the Gentiles, but clean and holy as born citizens
of the theocratic nation. But by our own course of conduct,
we express our contrary conviction. With all our observance
of the law, we have acknowledged ourselves to be sinners who
are in need of justification as well as others, well knowing
that by works, such as the law is able to produce,1 no man
can be justified before God ; but this can only be attained by
faith in Christ, and having been convinced of this, we have
sought justification by him alone. But this conviction we
contradict, if we seek again for justification by the works of
the law. We therefore present ourselvqs again as sinners2
1 We may here notice briefly what will be more fully developed when
we come to treat of the apostolic doctrine, that Paul by tgyois vopov
understands works which a compulsory, threatening law may force a
man to perform, in the absence of a holy disposition. The idea com
prehends the mere outward fulfilling of the law, in reference to what
is moral as well as what is ritual. Both, which are so closely connected
in Judaism, maintain their real importance only as an expression of
the truly pious disposition of Si/caioo-iVrj. The idea of the moral or the
ritual predominates only according to the varied antithetical relation
of- the phrase. In this passage, a special reference is made to the ritual.
2 The words, Gal. ii. 18, " If what I have destroyed (the Mosaic law)
I build up again, (like Peter, who had practically testified again to the
universal obligation of the Mosaic law), I must look upon myself as a
transgressor of the law, as a sinner." (Paul here supposes Peter to
express the conviction, that he had done wrong in departing from the
law, that he was guilty of transgressing a law that was still binding.) I
cannot perfectly agree with Riickert's exposition, who supposes these
words to be used by Paul in reference to himself. For this general
proposition would not be correct, " Whoever builds up again what he
has pulled down pursues a wrong course." If he had done wrong in
pulling down, he would do right in building up what had been pulled
212 PAUL'S JOURNEY TO ANTIOCH,
needing justification, and Christ, instead of justifying us from
sin, has deprived us of the only means of justification and led
us into sin, if it be sin to consider ourselves freed from the
law. Far be this from us." l
If we fix this controversy of Paul and Peter, 2 which as the
down ; and even the opponents of Paul maintained the first ; they could
not therefore be affected by that proposition, and the logical Paul
would have taken good care not to express it.
1 Paul's reprimand of Peter (Gal. ii.) appears to reach only as far as
the 18th verse, excl. What follows, by the transition from the plural
to the singular, and by the jag, is shown to be a commentary by Paul
on some expressions which, uttered in the warmth of feeling, might be
somewhat obscure, and evidently not a continuation of his address. As
to the date of this interview with Peter, we readily allow that we
cannot attain to absolute certainty. Paul himself narrates the occur
rence immediately after speaking of that journey to Jerusalem which
we find reasons for considering as his third. And, accordingly, we
suppose that this event followed the apostolic convention at Jerusalem.
And probably many persons would be induced, by the report of what
had taken place among the Gentile Christians, (which to Jewish
Christians must have appeared so very extraordinary), to resort to the
assembly of the Gentile Christians at Antioch, partly in order to be
witnesses of the novel transactions, and partly out of suspicion. Ac
cording to what we have before remarked, it is not impossible that these
Judaizers, soon after the resolutions for acknowledging the equal rights
of Gentile Christians were passed, became unfaithful to them, because
they explained them differently from their original intention. But.
there is greater probability, that these events did not immediately
succeed the issuing of those resolutions. It is by no means evident
that Paul, in this passage of the Epistle to the Galatians, intended to
observe chronological exactness. He rather appears to be speaking of
an event which was quite fresh in his memory, and had happened only
a short time before. Besides the two suppositions here mentioned, a
third is possible, which has been advocated by Hug and Sneckenburgh ;
namely, that this event took place before the apostolic convention. But
though Paul here follows no strict chronological order, yet it is difficult
to believe that he would not place the narrative of an event, so closely
connected with the controversies which gave occasion to his conferences
with the apostles at Jerusalem, at the beginning, instead of letting it
follow as supplementary.
2 Confessedly a mistaken reverence for the apostle led many persons
in the ancie-nt (especially the eastern) church to a very unnatural view
of this controversy. They adopted the notion that Peter and Paul had
an understanding with one another, that both, the one for the advan
tage of the Jews, the other for the advantage of the Gentile Christians,
committed an officiosum mendacium, in order that no stain might rest
on Peter's conduct. Augustin, in his Epistle to Jerome, and in his
book De Mendacio, has admirably combated this prejudice, and the
false interpretation founded upon it.
PAUL'S JOURNEY TO ANTIOCH. 213
following history shows, produced no permanent separation
between them — exactly at this period, it will throw much
light on the connexion of events. Till now the pacification
concluded at Jerusalem between the Jewish and Gentile
Christians had been maintained inviolate. Till now Paul
had to contend only with Jewish opponents, not with
Judaizers in the churches of Gentile Christians; — but now
the opposition between the Jewish and Gentile Christians,
which the apostolic resolutions had repressed, again made its
appearance. As in this capital of Gentile Christianity, which
formed the central point of Christian missions, this contro
versy first arose, so exactly in the same spot it broke forth
afresh, notwithstanding the measures taken by the apostles to
settle it ; and having once been renewed, it spread itself
through all the churches where there was a mixture of Jews
and Gentiles. Here Paul had first to combat that party
whose agents afterwards persecuted him in every scene of his
labours. It might at first appear strange, that this division
should break out exactly at that time; at the very time
when the manner in which Paul had just appeared at Jeru
salem, having become to the Jews a Jew, might have served
to make a favourable impression on the minds of those
Christians who were still attached to Judaism. But although
it might thus operate on the most moderate among them,
yet the event showed, that on the fanatical zealots, whose
principles were too contrary to admit of their being recon
ciled to him, it produced quite an opposite effect, when they
saw the man who had spoken so freely of the law — who had
always so strenuously maintained the equal rank of the uncir-
cumoised Gentile Christian with the Jewish Christians, and
whom they had condemned as a despiser of the law, when
they saw this man representing himself as one of the believing
Jewish people. They well knew how to make use of what
he had done at Jerusalem to his disadvantage ; and by repre
senting his actions in a false light, they accused him of incon
sistency, and of artfully attempting to natter the Gentile
Christians.
The influence of this party soon extended itself through the
churches in Galatia and Achaia. It is true that Paul, when,
after leaving his friends at Antioch, he visited once more the
churches in Phrygia and Galatia, on his way to Ephesus,
PAULS JOURNEY TO ANTIOCH.
whither he had promised to corne on his return, observed no
striking change among them. l But still, he remarked, that
1 He expresses to the Galatian churches his astonishment, that they
had deserted, so soon after his departure, the evangelical doctrine for
which they had before shown so much zeal ; Gal. i. 6. As several
modern writers (particularly Ruckert) have maintained it as an ascertained
fact, that Paul, during his second residence among the Galatian churches,
had to oppose their tendency to Judaism, we must examine more
closely the grounds of this assertion. As to Gal. i. 9, I cannot acknow
ledge as decisive the reasons alleged by Riickert^Usteri, and Schott,
against these words being an impassioned asseveration of the sentiment
in the preceding verse, and in favour of their being a reference to what
he had said, when last with them. Might it not be a reference to what
was written before, as Eph. iii. 3; 2 Cor. vii. 2? For that what he
refers to, in both these passages, is rather more distant, makes no
difference in the form of the expression. But if these words must refer
to something said by Paul at an earlier period, yet the consequence
which Riickert believes may be drawn from them, does not follow ; for
though Paul had no cause to be dissatisfied with the church itself, yet
after what he had experienced at Antioch, added to the earlier leaning
of a part of the church to Judaism, he might consider it necessary to
charge it upon them most impressively, that under whatever name,
however revered, another doctrine might be announced to them, than
what he had preached, such doctrine would deserve no credit, but must
be Anti-Christian. Although Gal. v. 21 certainly refers to something
said by the apostle at an earlier period, yet nothing further can be con
cluded from it : for in every church, he must have held it very necessary
to make it apparent, that men would only grossly flatter themselves if
they imagined that they could enter the kingdom of heaven without a
complete change of heart and conduct ; 1 Thess. iv. 6 ; Eph. v. 5. 6. The
words in Gal. v. 2, 3, must be thus understood, " As I said, that whoever
allows himself to be circumcised renounces his fellowship with Christ,
so I testify to such an one again, that he is bound to fulfil the whole
law." Evidently, the second and third verses relate to one another ; the
thoughts are correlative. If Paul intended to remind the Galatians of'
warnings he had given them by word of mouth, why did he not insert
the ird\iv in verse 2 ] since wKat is there expressed forms the leading
thought, and requires the strongest emphasis to be laid upon it. Also
in the fact, that without any preparation, as in his other epistles, he
opens this with such vehement rebuke, I cannot with Riickert find a
proof that during his former residence among these churches he had
detected the Judaizing tendency among them, and was forced to involve
all in blame, in order to bring them back to the right path. This very
peculiarity in the tone with which the epistle begins may be easily ex
plained, if we suppose that since, during his presence among them, he
had perceived no departure from the doctrine announced to them — and
had warned them beforehand of the artifices of the Judaizers — the
sudden information of the effect produced among them by this class of
persons had more painfully surprised, more violently affected him ; and
the whole epistle bears the marks of such an impression on his mind.
PAUL'S JOURNEY TO ANTIOCH. 215
these Judaizing" teachers sought to gain an entrance into the
churches, that they made a show of great zeal for their salva
tion, and that the Gentiles might attain to the full enjoyment
of the privileges and benefits of the Messiah's kingdom— and
that they strove to imbue them with the false notion, that
unless they allowed themselves to be circumcised, they could
not stand on a level with the Jewish Christians. Still he had
cause to be satisfied with the manner in which they main
tained their Christian freedom against these persons; Gal.
iv. 18. And he sought only to confirm them still more in
this Christian mode of thinking and acting, while he en
deavoured to impress on their hearts afresh the lesson, that
independently of any legal observance, salvation could be
obtained only by faith in Christ, and earnestly put them on
their guard against everything which opposed or injured this
truth. This was interpreted by his Judaizing opponents, who
were wont to misrepresent all his actions and words, and in
every way to infuse distrust of him, as if he had grudged the
Galatians those higher privileges which they might have
obtained by the reception of Judaism ; Gal. iv. 16.
Paul now chose as the scene of his labours for the spread of
the gospel, the centre of intercourse and traffic for a large part
of Asia, the city of Ephesus, the most considerable place of
commerce on this side of the Taurus. But here also was a
central point of mental intercourse ; so that no sooner was
Christianity introduced, than it was exposed to new conflicts
with foreign tendencies of the religious spirit, which either
directly counteracted the new divine element, or threatened
to adulterate it. Here was the seat of heathen magic, which
originally proceeded from the mystic worship of Artemis,1 and
Whichever among the conflicting interpretations of the words in
chap. iv. 18 may be taken, this much is evident, that Paul wi^ned that
they would act during his absence as they had done during his presence.
And this he surely could not have said, if already during his former
residence they had given him such cause for dissatisfaction. It is
arbitrary to refer this only to his first residence among them. Had he
during that residence noticed such thingsi among them, he would also
have felt that airogia in reference to them, he would have perceived the
necessity of a\Aa£ai rV Qwty, and have already made use of this new
mode of treatment, v. 20.
1 In the mysterious words on her statue, higher mysteries were
sought, and a special magical power ascribed to them. See Clem.
Strom, v. 568, and after these, forms of incantation were constructed,
216 PAUL'S JOURNEY TO ANTIOCH.
here also the Jewish magic, connecting itself with the
heathenish, sought to find entrance. The spirit of the times,
dissatisfied with all the existing religions, and eager after
something new, was favourable to all such attempts.
After Paul had preached the gospel for three months in the
synagogue, he was induced, by the unfriendly disposition
manifested by a part of the Jews, to turn his attention to the
Gentiles, and met his hearers daily in a school belonging to
one of their number, a rhetorician, named Tyrannus. It was
most important that the divine power which accompanied the
promulgation of the gospel should manifest itself in some
striking manner, in opposition to the magic so prevalent here,
— which by its apparently great effects deceived and captivated
many, — in order to rescue men from these arts of deception,
and prepare their hearts to receive the truth. And though a
carnal " seeking after signs" might have tempted men (like
the Goes Simon) to cleave solely to the sensible phenomenon
in which the power of the divine was manifested, and to
regard Christianity itself as a new and higher kind of magic,
a most powerful counteraction against such a temptation pro
ceeded from the genius of Christianity, when it really found
an entrance into the heart One remarkable occurrence which
took place at this time greatly contributed to set in the
clearest light the opposition which Christianity presented to
all such arts of jugglery. A number of Jewish Goe'tse fre
quented these parts, who pretended that they could expel evil
spirits from possessed persons by means of incantations, fumi
gations, the use of certain herbs, and other arts, which they
had derived from King Solomon;1 and these people could at
times, whether by great dexterity in deceiving the senses, or
by availing themselves of certain powers of nature unknown
to others, or by the influence of an excited imagination,
produce apparently great effects, though none which really
promoted the welfare of mankind.2 When these Jewish
Goe'tae beheld the effects which Paul produced by calling on
which were supposed to possess great efficacy, the so-called
1 See Justin. Dial. c. Tryph. Jud. f. 311, ed. Colon.
2 The cures they performed were sometimes followed by still greater
evils, as Christ himself intimates would be the case ; Luke xi. 23. See
also Leben Jesu, p. 291.
PAUL'S JOURNEY TO ANTIOCH. 217
the name of Jesus, they also attempted to make use of it as
a magical formula for the exorcism of evil spirits. The
unhappy consequences of this attempt made a powerful
impression on many, who, as it appeared, had certainly been
moved by the miraculous operations of the apostle, so as to
acknowledge Jesus as the author of divine powers in men,
but imagined that these powers could be employed in the
services of their sinful practices, and in connexion with their
vain magical arts. But terrified by the disaster to which we
have referred, they now came to the apostle, and professed
repentance for their sinful course, and declared their resolu
tion to forsake it. Books full of magical formulas, which
amounted in value to more than " fifty pieces of silver," were
brought together and publicly burnt. This triumph of the
gospel over all kinds of. enthusiasm and arts of deception was
often repeated.
Ephesus was a noted rendezvous for men of various kinds
of religious^ belief, who nocked hither from various parts of
the east, and thus were brought under the influence of Chris
tianity; amongst others, Paul here met with twelve disciples
of John the Baptist, the individual who was commissioned by
God to prepare for the appearance of the Redeemer among
his nation and contemporaries ; but, as was usual with the
preparatory manifestations of the kingdom of God, different
effects were produced according to the different susceptibility
of his hearers. There were those of his disciples who, follow
ing his directions, attained to a living faith in the Redeemer,
and some of whom became apostles ; others only attained a
very defective knowledge of the person and doctrine of
Christ ; others again, not imbibing the spirit of their master,
held fast their former prejudices, and assumed a hostile
attitude towards Christianity ; probably the first germ 01
such an opposition appeared at this time from which the sect
of the disciples of John was formed, which continued to exist
in a later age. Those disciples of John with whom Paul met
at Ephesus, belonged to the second of these classes. Whether
they had become the disciples of John himself in Palestine
and received baptism from him, or whether they had been
won over to his doctrine by means of his disciples in other
parts, — (which would serve to prove that John's disciples
aimed at forming a separate community, which necessarily
218 PAUL'S JOUHNEY TO ANTIOCH.
would soon assume a jealous and hostile position against
Christianity on its first rapid spread) — at all events, they
had received the little they had heard of the person and doc
trine of Jesus as the Messiah, to whom John pointed his
followers, and considered themselves justified in professing to
be Christians l like others. Paul believed that he should find
them such ; but, on further conversation with them, it
appeared that they understood nothing of the power of the
glorified Saviour, and of the communication of divine life
through him, — that they knew nothing of a Holy Spirit. Paul
then imparted to_ them more accurate instruction on the
relation between the ministry of John and that of Christ,
between the baptism of John and the baptism which would
initiate them into communion with Christ, and into a partici
pation of the divine life that proceeded from him. After
that, he baptized them in the name of Christ, with the usual
consecration by the sign of the laying-on of hands and the
accompanying prayer; and their reception into Christian
fellowship was sealed by the usual manifestations of Christian
inspiration.
Paul's residence at Ephesus was not only of considerable
importance for the spread of Christianity throughout Asia
Minor, for which object he incessantly laboured either by
undertaking journeys himself, or by means of disciples whom
he sent out as missionaries ; but it was also a great advantage
for the churches that were already formed in this region, as
from this central point of intercourse he could most easily
receive intelligence from all quarters, and, by means of letters
or messengers, could attend to their religious and moral con
dition, as the necessities of the churches might require. His
anxiety for these his spiritual children always accompanied
him ; he often reminded them that he remembered them
daily in his prayers with thanksgiving and intercession ; thus
he assured the Corinthians, in the overflowing of his love, that
he bore them continually in his heart ; and vividly depicted
his daily care for all the churches he had founded by his
touching interrogations, " Who is weak in faith and I am not
1 The name i^aQ^rai, Acts xix. 1, without any other designation, can
certainly be understood only of the disciples of Jesus ; and the manner
in which Paul addressed them implies, that they were considered to be
Christians.
PAUL'S JOURNEY TO ANTIOCH. 219
weak ? Who meets with a stumbling-block and I am not dis
turbed even more than himself?" 2 Cor. xi. 29.
Cases of the latter kind must often have excited the grief
of the apostle ; for as the Christian faith gradually gained
the ascendency and affected the general tone of thinking in
society, new views of life in general, and a new mode of feel
ing, were formed in the Gentile world ; and in opposition to
the immoral licentiousness of heathenism, which men were
led to renounce by the new principles of the Christian life, an
anxiously legal and Jewish mode of thinking, which burdened
the conduct with numberless restraints, was likely to find an
entrance, and must have disturbed the minds of many who
had not attained settled Christian convictions.
Probably it was soon after his arrival at Ephesus that
Paul received information respecting the state of the Galatian
churches which awakened his fears. During his last
residence among them, he had perceived the machinations
of a Judaizing party, which were likely to injure the purity
of the Christian faith and the freedom of the Christian spirit.
He was aware of the danger which threatened from this
quarter, and had taken measures to counterwork it ; he was
not successful, however, in averting the approaching storm,
as he now experienced to his great sorrow.
The adversaries whom he had here to contend with were
unwilling to acknowledge his apostolic authority, because he
had not been instructed and called to the apostleship imme
diately by Christ himself; they maintained that all preach
ing of the gospel must rest on the authority of the apostles
who were appointed by Christ himself; they endeavoured
to detect a contrariety between the doctrine of Paul and the
doctrine of the apostles, who had allowed the observance of
the law in their churches, and accused him in consequence
of a departure from the pure doctrine of Christ. They
could also appeal to the fact, that he represented himself
when among the Jews as a Jew observing the law, and there
fore, when he taught otherwise among the Gentiles, he could
only do it in order to flatter them, to the injury of their true
interest.
Although the anti-Pauline tendency in the Galatian
churches was connected with that party which had its prin
cipal seat in Palestine, yet persons who proceeded from the
220 PAUL'S JOURNEY TO ANTIOCH.
midst of the Gentile Christians/ and had submitted to cir
cumcision, acted here principally as the organs of this party,
and exercised the greatest influence. To such the words of
Paul in Gal. vi. 1 3 must relate ; that even those who were
circumcised, or wished to be so, did not themselves observe
the law. These must have been originally Gentiles, and, on
this supposition, it is less difficult to understand, how he could
say of them that they themselves did not observe the law, —
for to persons who had grown up in heathenism, it could not
be so easy a matter to practise the complete round of Jewish
observances. But, as is most generally the case with prose
lytes, they were peculiarly zealous for the party to which,
notwithstanding their Grecian descent, they had devoted
themselves, and their influence with their countrymen was
far more dangerous than that of the Jewish false teachers.
Such a mixture of Judaism and Christianity threatened
to destroy the whole essence of Christianity, and to substitute
a Jewish ceremonial service in the place of a genuine Chris
tian conversion proceeding from a living faith, and the danger
1 This entirely depends upon whether we adopt the lectio recepta in
Gal. vi. 13, TrfgiT€/jt.v6fj.fi'oi, or the reading of the codex Vaticanus approved
by Lachmann [and TischendorfF] 7re^iT6T^7j/AeVot. I cannot help con
sidering the first (which has the greatest number of original authorities
in its favour) as the correct reading, partly on this account, that we
cannot imagine any reason why any one should be induced to explain
the latter, a word requiring no explanation, by the former, a more
difficult one, and on the contrary, it may be easily accounted for, how a
person might think of explaining the former by the latter. If the
lectio recepta be the correct one, still the expression cannot refer to cir
cumcised Jews, but only to Gentiles who suffered themselves to be cir
cumcised. That the most influential seducers of the Galatian churches
were such, appears to me to be intimated by the word cwro/cctyovTat, v. 12.
Hence may be better explained the impassioned terms, proceeding from
a truly holy zeal, with which Paul speaks against these persons. If
circumcision be not enough for them, let them have excision also;
if, falling away from the religion of the spirit, they seek their salvation in
these outward worthless things and would make themselves dependent
upon them. The pathos with which he here speaks, testifies his zeal
for the salvation of souls, and for the elevated spiritual character of
Christianity, and against all ceremonial services, by which Christianity
and human nature would be degraded. And there is no occasion
for the apology made by Jerome, although what he says is correct, that
we must still look on the apostle as a man subject to human affections :
" Nee mirum esse si Apostolus, ut homo et adhue vasculo clausus
infirmo semel fuerit hoc loquutus, in quod frequenter ?anctos viros
cadere perspicimus."
221
which thus threatened the divine work made a deep impres
sion on the apostles. In order to give the Galatian Chris
tians an evidence of his love, of which the Judaizers wished
to excite a mistrust, and to make it evident what importance
he attached to the subject, he undertook to write an epistle
to them with his own hand, contrary to his usual custom, and
a difficult task for one who, amidst his manifold engagements,
had little practice in writing Greek.1
He begins his epistle with declaring that his apostolic call
was given him immediately by Christ himself, as to the other
apostles ; he assures the Galatian Christians in a most solemn
manner that there could be no other gospel than that which
he had announced to them, and that it was far from his
thoughts to be influenced by the desire of his pleasing men
in his mode of publishing the gospel;2 though when en
thralled in Pharisaism, he was actuated only by a regard to
human authority. But since he had devoted himself to the
service of Christ, he had renounced all such considerations,
and taught and acted in obedience to the divine call, as re-
1 Although the proper meaning of the Greek TnjXiKots, Gal. vi. 11,
would lead us to understand it as referring to the large unshapely letters
of an unpractised writer, yet I could never find in the words so under
stood, an expression corresponding to the earnestness of the apostle,
and the tone of the whole epistle. Why should he not have expressed,
in a more natural manner, how toilsome he had found the task of
merely writing in this language1? See Schott's Commentary. We are
inclined to believe, that he uses the word in the less proper sense
for trcffots, as in the later Latin authors we often find quanti for quot.
And we may refer it most naturally to the whole epistle, as written with
his own hand. It will also agree with the use of the word ypdfj./j.ara,
when applied to an epistle. But, on the other hand, the use of the
datire in this case is unusual, and not agreeable to the Pauline phrase
ology, and to the frequent use ef the word e7n<rroA^. for an epistle.
The reason of his writing the whole epistle with his own hand, was cer
tainly not to guard against a falsification of it, or the forgery of another
in his name; for his opponents, in this instance, were under no tempta
tion to do this, since they were not desirous of ascribing to him any
other doctrine than that of his own, but were at issue with him respect
ing the truth of that doctrine, and actually impugned his apostolic
authority. The connexion of the passage plainly shows us for what
purpose he so expressly stated that he had written the whole with his
own hand, — namely, to testify that his love for them induced him to
undergo any labour on their account, in contrast with the false teachers
whom he had described in the following verses as seeking their own
glory.
2 The Judaizers accused him of this in reference to the Gentiles.
222 PAUL'S JOURNEY TO ANTIOCH.
sponsible to God alone.1 He proved to them by a lucid
statement of facts, that from the first he published the gospel
in consequence of immediate divine illumination., and indepen
dently of all human authority ; and that the other apostles
had acknowledged his independent apostolic character. 2
With the firmest conviction that salvation and all the fulness
of the divine life were to be found only by faith in the cruci
fied, he turns to the Galatian Christians with the exclamation,
" Ye fools, who hath so bewitched you ! to forget Jesus the
Crucified, whom we have set forth before your eyes as the
only ground of our salvation, and to seek in outward things,
in the works of the law, that salvation for which ye must be
indebted to him alone ! Are ye so void of understanding,
that after ye have begun your Christianity in the spirit, in
the divine life which proceeds from faith, ye can seek after
something higher still (the perfecting of your Christianity,)
in the low, the sensuous, and the earthly, in that which can
have no elevating influence on the inner life of the spirit, in
the observance of outward ceremonies !" He appeals to the
evidence of their own experience, that though from the first
the gospel had been published to them independently of the
law, yet by virtue of faith in the Redeemer alone, the divine
1 Sehrader misunderstands Gal. i. 10, when he applies it only to
Jews and Judaizing Christians. If we apply the assertion here made
in the most general terms, according to the sense intended by Paul, we
shall understand it of Gentiles and Gentile Christians. Paul wished to
defend himself against the accusation of the Jews, that he wilfully falsi
fied the doctrine of Christ, in order to make it acceptable to the
heathen. The £§TL marks the opposition of his conduct as the SoDAos
Xpio-rov to his former Pharisaism, of which he afterwards speaks more
at large. This view of the passage does away with an inference which
Sehrader attempts to draw from it, that Paul wrote this epistle during
the time of his imprisonment at Eome.
2 The chief points which it was important for the apostle to establish
were these ; — that before he made his first journey to Jerusalem, after
his conversion, he had appeared as an independent preacher of the
gospel — that his first journey to Jerusalem had altogether a different
object from being taught by the apostles the right method of preaching
the gospel — and that it was not till after he had preached the gospel
alone for some years, that he conversed with the most distinguished of
the apostles, to whom the Judaizers themselves were wont to appeal,
respecting their different method, and notwithstanding that difference,
they still acknowledged him as a genuine apostle. Paul's object by no
means required a recital of all his journeys to Jerusalem. See the
remarks of Bauer in the Tubinger Zeitschrift, 1831, Part 4, p. 112.
PAUL'S JOURNEY TO ANTIOCH. 223
power of the gospel had revealed itself among them by mani
fold operations, among which he reckoned the miracles to
which he alludes in chap. iii. 5.
As his opponents supported themselves on the authority of
the Old Testament, Paul shows, on the other hand, that the
final aim of its contents was to prepare for the appearance of
the Redeemer, by whom the wall of separation that had
hitherto existed among men was to be taken away, and all
men by virtue of faith in him were to receive a divine life ;
that the promises given to Abraham were annexed to the
condition of faith, and would be fulfilled in all who were fol
lowers of Abraham in faith, as his genuine spiritual children ;
that the manifestation of the law formed only a preparatory
intervening period between the giving of the promise and its
fulfilment by the appearance of the Redeemer. He placed
Judaism and heathenism — though, in other respects, he
viewed these religions as essentially different — in one class in
relation to Christianity ; the standing-point of pupillage in
religion, in relation to the standing-point of maturity which
the children of God attained for the full enjoyment of their
rights ; the standing-point of the dependence of religion on
outward, sensible things, an outward cultus, consisting in
various ceremonies in relation to the standing-point of a
religion of freedom (which proceeded from faith) of the
spirit, and of the inward life.
As his opponents charged him with a want of uprightness,
and with releasing the Gentiles from the burdensome obser
vance of the law, merely from a wish to ingratiate himself
with them, he could adopt no more suitable method of vindi
cating himself, and of infusing confidence into the Galatian
Christians, than by proposing the example of his own life for
imitation. He lived among the Gentiles as a Gentile, with
out submitting to the restrictions of the Mosaic Law, which
certainly he would not have done if he had believed that it
was impossible to attain the full possession of the blessings of
the Messiah's kingdom without the observance of the law.
Hence he made this demand on the Galatians (iv. 12,)1 "Be
come as I am (in reference to the non-observance of the law),
1 I agree with Usteri in the explanation of these words. That the
Galatians had at that time adopted the practice of Jewish ceremonies,
and therefore Paul could not in this respect say, " I am become like
you," — can form no valid objection to this interpretation ; for the Gala-
224 PAUL'S JOURNEY TO ANTIOCH.
for I am become as you are, like you as Gentiles in the non-
observance of the law, although a native Jew." Now, if his
method of becoming to the Jews a Jew, by observing the
ceremonies of the law when amongst them in Palestine, had
been at all inconsistent with what he here said of himself, he
would not have appealed with such confidence to his own
example. But, according to his own principles, such a con
tradiction could not exist ; for, if he did not constantly
observe the ceremonies of the law, but only under certain
relations and circumstances, this sufficiently showed that he
no longer ascribed to them an objective importance, that
iccording to his conviction they could contribute nothing to
the justification and sanctification of men ; and as this was
his principle in reference to all outward, and in themselves
indifferent things, he only submitted to them for the benefit
of others, according to the dictates of wisdom and love.
Paul called upon the Galatians to stand firm in the liberty
gained for them by Christ, and not to bring themselves again
under the yoke of bondage. He assured them, that if they
were circumcised, Christ would profit them nothing ; that
every man who submitted to circumcision was bound to
observe the whole law ; that since they sought to be justified
by the law, they had renounced their connexion with Christ,
they were fallen from the possession of grace. What he here
says, is by no means inconsistent with his allowing Timothy
to be circumcised, and accommodating himself in outward
usages to the Jewish Christians.1 For he means not outward
circumcision considered in itself, but in its connexion with
the religious principle involved in it, as far as the Gentile
who submitted to circumcision did so in the conviction that
by it, and therefore by the law (to whose observance a man
was bound by circumcision) justification was to be obtained.
And this conviction stood in direct opposition to that dispo
sition which felt indebted to the Saviour alone for salvation.
tian Christians, all of whom certainly had not devoted themselves to
the observance of the law, still belonged to the stock of the Gentiles,
and with this view, the term fyets is used.
1 Keil believes that he has detected an inconsistency in principle,
and hence concluded, that this epistle belonged to an earlier period in
the apostle's life, preceding the apostolic convocation, since in his first
zeal after his conversion he indulged in a rude vehemence against
Judaism, which afterwards was softened.
PAUL'S JOURNEY TO ANTIOCII. 225
The apostle, in contrasting his true upright love to the Gala-
tian Christians, with the pretended zeal of the Judaizers for
their salvation, said to them, " They have a zeal on your ac
count, but not in the right way ; but they wish to exclude you
from the kingdom of God in order that you may be zealous
about them, that is, they wish to persuade you, that you
cannot as uncircumcised Gentiles enter the kingdom of God,
in order that you may emulate them, that you may be cir
cumcised as they are, as if thus only you can become members
of the kingdom of God. Those who are disposed of their out
ward preeminence (of outward Judaism), compel you to be
circumcised only that they may not be persecuted with the
cross of Christ, that is, with the doctrine of Christ the Cruci
fied, as the only ground of salvation, that they may not be
obliged to owe their salvation to Him alone, and to renounce
all their merits, all in which they think themselves dis
tinguished above others. ! They wish you to be circumcised
1 I here adopt an interpretation of the words in Gal. vi. 12, different
from that which from ancient times has been received by most expo
sitors, and which, without being closely examined, has been mentioned
by listed only with unqualified disapprobation. I will therefore state
a few things in its favour. The common explanation of the passage is,
" These persons compel you to be circumcised, only because they are
not willing to be persecuted for the cross of Christ ; that is, in order to
avoid the persecutions which the publication of the doctrine of justifi-
c ition through faith alone, in Jesus the Crucified, will bring upon them
from the Jews." The use of the dative suits this interpretation,
although I believe that Paul, if he had wished to give utterance to this
simple thought, would have expressed himself more plainly. Gal. v. 11
is in favour of this interpretation, where Paul says of himself, that if he
still preached the necessity of circumcision, then the offence which the
Jews took at Christianity, on account of the doctrine that a man by
faith in the Crucified, might become an heir of the kingdom of heaven,
without the observance of the law — would at once be taken away, and
that no reason would be left for persecuting him as a preacher of
the gospel. But in order to avoid such persecutions on the part of the
Jews, these persons need only observe the law strictly themselves, and
beware of publishing the doctrine, that a man could be justified with
out the works of the law ; by no means would they thereby be obliged
to press circumcision so urgently on the Gentiles already converted,
nor does Paul ever ascribe to his Judaizing opponents the design of
avoiding the persecution that threatened them by such conduct. And
if, according to the indications that have been pointed out, the most
influential opponents of Paul in the Galatian churches were of Gentile
descent, this interpretation would still less hold good, for Gentiles
might bring persecutions on themselves sooner by the observance of
VOL. I. Q
226 PAUL'S JOURNEY TO ANTIOCH.
only that they may glory in your flesh, that is, in the change
which they have outwardly effected in you, by bringing you
over altogether to the Jewish Christian party." The apostle,
lastly, adjured the Galatians that they would not give him
any further trouble, since he bore in his body the mark of the
sufferings he had endured for the cause of Christ.1
Jewish ceremonies, than by the observance of the Christian religion,
which Avas not conspicuous in outward rites. And how would this
interpretation suit the connexion1? Paul says (Gal. vi. 12), "Those who
wish to have some preeminence in outward things (some outward dis
tinction before others) oblige you to be circumcised." After this,
•we expect something related to it, in the clause beginning with 'iva /j.^,
something that may serve as an exegesis, or to fix the meaning. But,
according to that interpretation, something quite foreign would follow
— that thereby they wish to avoid persecution. If this thought fol
lowed, Paul, would have said at first — " Those who long after ease for
the flesh, or who are afraid to bear the cross of Christ (or something of
the kind), force circumcision upon you," £c. Verse 14 also shows,
that all the emphasis is laid on glorying alone in the cross of Christ,
which is opposed to setting a high value on any other glorying. The
thought arising from that interpretation appears quite foreign to the
context, both before and after. On the other hand, the interpretation I
have adopted suits it entirely. That eu7rpo<ra>7reTi/ eV <rap/cl, that /coi'»-
XTIP-O. Kara crapKa is taken a\vay, if men can glory only in the cross
of Christ. Hence they consider the cross of Christ, that is, the
doctrine of faith in the Crucified, the only sufficient means of salvation,
as something wearing a hostile aspect towards them, by which they
are persecuted, since it obliges them to renounce their fancied
superiority. With the positive clause in v. 12, " those who wish to
have some preeminence according to the flesh," the negative clause
agrees very well, " that they may not be persecuted with or by the cross
of Christ," (the cross of Christ is something subjective to them, by which
they are persecuted). The mention of the cross first, according to the
best accredited reading adopted by Lachmann, suits this view of the
passage. According to the other view, all the emphasis is to be placed
on the not being persecuted. On the whole, the leading idea of the
whole passage appears to be, Glorying in the cross of Christ, in opposi
tion to glorying in the flesh.
1 If we only consider what is narrated in the Acts of his sufferings
hitherto, though it is evident from a comparison with 2 Cor. xi. that all
is not mentioned, we shall be as little disposed as by what the apostle
says of the persecutions of the Jews, to apply these words (with
Schrader)to his imprisonment at Rome. What Paul says in chap. ii. 10,
respecting the fulfilment of obligations to the poor at Jerusalem, might
favour the later composition of this epistle, but proves nothing ; for the
words by no means lead us to think of that last large collection, ot
which he undertook to be the bearer to Jerusalem. He might very
often have sent separate contributions from the churches of Gentile
Christians to Jerusalem, although, owing to the imperfections of church
PAUL'S JOURNEY TO ANTIOCH. 227
During his residence at Ephesus, the affairs of the
Corinthian church demanded his special attention. The
history of this community presents us with an image of those
appearances and disturbances which have been often repeated
in later periods of the church on a larger scale. A variety of
influences mingled their action on this church, and it is im
possible to deduce everything from one common ground of
explanation, such as the relation1 between the different
parties ; although one common cause may be found which
will explain many of these influences, in the particular situa
tion of the Christian Church, which the new Christian spirit
had but partially penetrated, opposed as it was by former
habits of life and the general state of society. Many of the
easily excited and mobile Greeks had been carried away by
the powerful impression of Paul's ministry made at Corinth,
and at first showed great zeal for Christianity ; but the
essence of Christianity had taken no deep root in their
unsettled dispositions. In a city like Corinth, where so great
a corruption of morals prevailed, and so many incentives to
the indulgence of the passions were presented on every side,
such a superficial conversion was exposed to the greatest
danger. In addition to this, after Paul had laid the founda
tion of the church, other preachers followed him who pub
lished the gospel partly in another form, and partly on other
principles, and who, since their various constitutional pecu
liarities were not properly subordinated to the essential
principles of the gospel, gave occasion to many divisions
among the Greeks, a people naturally inclined to parties and
party disputes.2 There3 were at first persons of the same
history, we have no certain information respecting them. On his last
journey preceding his last visit to the Galatians, he might have brought
with him one of these smaller collections.
• By attempting to deduce too much from this single cause, Storr has
indulged in many forced interpretations and suppositions.
2 Owing to this national characteristic, the efficiency of the gospel
among them was much disturbed and Aveakened in after ages.
r> Riickert thinks that the order in which the parties are mentioned
in 1 Cor. i. 12, corresponds to the period of their formation; that first
the preaching of Apollos occasioned the formation of such a division in
the church, who felt a greater partiality to Apotlos than to Paul, and
were no longer satisfied with the latter, though they had not yet
formed themselves into a particular party ; then the Judaizers would
take advantage of such a state of feeling, and join the favourers of
228 PAUL'S JOURNEY TO ANTIOCH.
spirit as those false teachers of the Galatian churches, who
wished to introduce a Christianity more mingled with Juda
ism — who could not endure the independence and freedom
with which the gospel published by Paul was developed
among the Gentiles, although they were not so violent as the
Galatian false teachers, and accordingly named themselves,
not after James, whom the most decided Judaizers made
their chief authority, but after Peter. Moreover, we must
carefully notice the difference of circumstances. The Gala
tian churches could be more easily operated upon by organs
of the Judaizing party who came forward from among them
selves; it was altogether different at Corinth, where the
Judaizers had to operate upon men of a decidedly Grecian
character, who were not so susceptible of the influence of
Judaism. Hence they could not venture to come forward at
once, and disclose their intentions : it was necessary first to
prepare the soil, before they scattered the seed ; — to act
warily and gently ; to accomplish their work gradually ; to
employ a variety of artifices in order to undermine the princi
ples on which Paul preached the gospel ; to infuse a mistrust
of his apostolic character, and thus to alienate the affections
of his converts from him. l They began with casting doubts
on Paul's apostolic dignity, for the reasons which have been
before mentioned ; they set in opposition to him, as the only
genuine apostles, those who were instructed and ordained by
Christ himself. They understood besides how to instil into
anxious minds a number of scruples, to which a life spent in
intercourse with heathens would easily give rise, and which
Apollos in opposition to Paul ; thus two parties would be formed. But,
in course of time, the original partisans of Apollos would discover that
they could not agree -with the Judaizers, who had at first, in order to
find an entrance, concealed their peculiarities, and thus at last there
would be three distinct parties. But this passage (i. 12) cannot avail
for determining the chronological relation of these parties to one
another. Paul here follows the logical relation, without adverting to
the chronological order. He places the partisans of Apollos next to
those of Paul, because they only formed a particular section of the
Pauline party ; he then mentions those who were their most strenuous
opponents ; and lastly, those through whose existence the other parties
would be presupposed. We have throughout no data by which to deter
mine the chronological connexion of the three first parties.
1 See the remarks of Bauer, in his essay on the Christ-party in the
Corinthian church (in the Tubinger Zeitsclirift fur Theologie, 1831,
part iv. p. 83).
PAUL'S JOURNEY TO ANTIOCH. 229
persons who had been previously proselytes to Judaism must
have been predisposed to entertain.
Persons whose minds took this direction, placed Peter, as
an apostle chosen by the Lord himself, and especially distin
guished by him, in opposition to Paul, who had assumed the
office at a later period. When the strongly marked pecu
liarities of any of the apostles were blended with their views
of Christianity, and it presented them in a varied form, it
was in accordance with the different spheres of activity
assigned them by God, and served not to injure the unity of the
Christian spirit, but rather in this very manifoldness to illus
trate its excellence ; but now among those who attached
themselves to this or the other apostles, one-sided tendencies
became prominent, and that variety which might have con
sisted with unity, was formed by them into an exclusive con
trariety. As a one-sided Petrine party was formed in the
Corinthian church, so a one-sided Pauline party sprung up in
opposition to it, which recognised the Pauline as the only
genuine form of Christianity, ridiculed the nice distinctions
of scrupulous consciences, and set themselves in stern oppo
sition to everything Jewish. In one of their tendencies we
find the germ of the later Judaizing sects, and in the other
that of the later Marcionite error.
But in the Pauline party itself, a two-fold direction was
manifested, on the following grounds. Among the disciples
of John who came to Ephesus, and considered themselves as
Christians, though their knowledge was very defective, was
Apollos, a Jew of Alexandria, who had received the Jewish-
Grecian education, peculiar to the learned among the Alex
andrian Jews, and a great facility in the use of the Greek
language.1 Aquila and his wife instructed him more accu-
1 The epithet &i% \6yios given to him in Acts xviii. 24, probably
denotes, not an eloquent but a learned man, which would best suit an
Alexandrian, since a learned literary education, and not eloquence, was
the precise distinction of the Alexandrians ; and his disputation with
the Jews at Corinth suits this meaning of \6yiot, taken from the Jewish
standing-point. In this sense the word is found both in Josephus and
Philo ; in the first, \6-ytoi is opposed to iSiurais, De Bell. Jud. vi. 5, § 3 ;
and by Philo, De Vita Mosis, i. § 5, Aiyvirriwv ol Acfyioi. But another
meaning of the word as it was used at that time is also possible, and
since it appears from the First Epistle to the Corinthians, that Apollos
was also a man eloquent in the Greek language ; so that we are left in
some uncertainty how to understand this epithet. According to the
230 PAUL'S JOURNEY TO ANTIOCH.
rately in Christianity, and when he was about to sail to Achaia,
commended him to the Corinthian church as a man who, by
his zeal and peculiar gifts, would be able to do much for the
furtherance of the divine cause, especially at Corinth, where
his Alexandrian education would procure him a more ready
access to a part of the Jews and Gentiles. His Alexandrian
mode of developing and representing Christian truths, as it
approached to the Grecian taste, was peculiarly adapted to
the educated classes at Corinth ; but fascinated by it, they
attached too great importance to this peculiar form, and de
spised, in contrast with it, the simple preaching of Paul, who,
when he taught among them, determined to know nothing
save Jesus the Crucified. We here see the germ of that
Gnosis which sprung up in the soil of Alexandria, and aimed
at exalting itself above the simple faith (Pistis) of the
gospel.
But it has been lately maintained,1 that the difference be
tween the Pauline party and that of Apollos, related not to
any difference in the form of doctrine, but only to the posi
tion in which Paul and Apollos stood to the founding of the
Corinthian church, as the apostle himself, in 1 Cor. iii. 6, 7,
indicates, that it was made a question, whether he who laid
the foundation, or he who raised the superstructure, deserved
the preeminence. But if we follow this hint, it will conduct
us much further. We cannot stop short at these merely out
ward relations, but must seek in the characteristic qualities
of these two men, who stood in such different relations to
the church, for the reason, that some were more attached to
the one, and some to the other. We may presume that the
manner in which one laid the foundation, and the other raised
the superstructure, depended on the difference of their
characteristic qualities. To this difference Paul himself ad
verts, when, after speaking of the merely outward relations
first interpretation, SiWros &v eV TCUS ypaQcus, would only more
precisely express what is contained in \6yios ; according to the second,
it would be a perfectly new and distinct characteristic. This "exe-
getical question is of no importance historically, for certainly both
epithets are applicable to Apollos.
1 By a distinguished young theologian, the licentiate Daniel
Schenkel, in his Inquisitio Critico-hislorica de Ecclesia Corinthiaca,
primceva, Basilece, 1838, with which De Wette, in his late Commentary
on the Epistles to the Corinthians, has expressed bis concurrence.
PAUL'S JOURNEY TO ANTIOCII. 231
between himself and Apollos, he represents in figurative
language how every genuine teacher of Christianity ought to
proceed in building on the foundation that has been once
laid; 1 Cor. iii. 12. The connexion evidently shows, that
Paul had primarily in view his relation to the party of
Apollos ; every other explanation is forced.1 If we compare
the qualities possessed by the apostle and his fellow-labourer,
as far as our information extends, we may easily infer the
difference in their mode of teaching, and in their respective
partisans. That Paul possessed great force and command of
language, we may conclude with certainty from his epistles,
as is also evinced by his discourse at Athens. In that elo
quence which is adapted to seize powerfully on men's minds,
he was inferior to no preacher of the gospel, not even to
Apollos himself. It was his peculiar natural gift, sanctified
and elevated by spiritual influence for the cause of the gospel,
in which he was probably superior to Apollos ; and if the
Epistle to the Hebrews is to be attributed to the latter, and
we compare it with those of Paul, it would serve to confirm
the opinion. In dialectic power also, which was founded
on the peculiar character of his intellect, and developed and
improved by his youthful training in the schools of the
Pharisees, as well as in the skilful interpretation and use of
the Old Testament, he ' was surpassed by none. But still
between himself and Apollos a difference not unimportant
existed, which affected their peculiar style of teaching ; the
latter, as an Alexandrian, had received an education more
adapted to the Grecian mind and taste, and possessed a greater
familiarity with the pure Grecian phraseology, in which Paul
was defective, as we may gather from his epistles, and as he
expressly asserts ; 2 Cor. xi. G. Now, in making the gospel
known at Corinth, he had special reasons for rejecting all the
aids that otherwise were at his command for recommending
1 We must carefully distinguish those who, by assailing the un
changeable foundation of Christianity, destroyed the temple of God in
the church, 1 Cor. iii. 16 and 17, from those of whom Paul judged far
more leniently, because they preserved inviolate the foundation that
was laid, though they added to it what was more or less human. Of
the latter, he affirms that, since they held fast the foundation of salva
tion, they would finally be partakers of salvation, though after a painful
and repeated process of purification ; of the others, that they would
coine to ruin, because they had destroyed the work of God.
232 PAUL'S JOURNEY TO ANTIOCH.
evangelical truth, and for using only the " demonstration of
the spirit and of power," which accompanied its simple
annunciation. The Alexandrian refinement of Apollos must
have formed a striking contrast to the simplicity of Paul's
preaching ; and, if we take into account the circumstances
and social relations of the Corinthians, we cannot wonder that
a preference for such a style of address led to the formation
of a distinct party in the Corinthian church. It was not the
peculiar style of Apollos in itself which Paul condemned ; —
it became every teacher to work with the gifts entrusted to
him, according to the standing-point on which the Lord had
placed him • — but he combated the one-sided and arrogant
over- valuation of this talent, the excessive estimation in which
this form of mental culture was held. It by no means follows,
that he attributed a false wisdom to Apollos himself ; l but
the one-sided direction of his partisans, in which the ffo<plav
^reiv predominated, would easily produce a false wisdom,
by which evangelical truth would be obscured or pushed into
the background. Paul perceived this threatening danger, and
hence felt himself impelled strenuously to combat the principle
on which such a tendency was founded.
Besides the parties already mentioned, we find a fourth in
the Corinthian church, whose peculiarities it is more difficult
to ascertain, since, judging from its name, we cannot readily
suppose that it belonged to a sect blamed by the apostle, and
in no other part of the first Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians
do we find any distinct references to it from which we might
infer its specific character ; it was composed of persons who
said that they were "of Christ ;" 1 Cor. i. 12. If we con
sider this party as involved in the censure expressed by the
apostle,2 which the grammatical construction of the passage
1 This charge against Apollos, in the opinion of Schenkel and De
Wette, is well founded, but by no means follows from the view taken by
ourselves and others of the peculiarities of the party of Apollos.
2 The interpretation which has been proposed by Pott and Schott,
and according to which, all conjectures respecting the peculiar character
of a Christ-party at Corinth would be superfluous, is grammatically
possible. It assumes that Paul, in this passage, only enumerated histo
rically the various parties in the Corinthian church, without concluding
that all who are specified came under the censure of the apostle. Those
indeed who firmly adhered to the doctrine taught by Paul, and esteemed
him, as he wished, only as an organ of Christ, — those who wished to
keep aloof from all party contentions, and called themselves only after
PAUL'S JOURNEY TO ANTIOCII. 233
seems to require, we' must believe that these persons did not
wish to be " of Christ," in the sense in which Paul desired
that all the Corinthians should be, but that they appropriated
Christ to themselves in an erroneous sense, and wished to
make him, as it were, the head of their party. And we must
then suppose that the apostle, though with an allusion in the
first instance to their party designation, yet including a refer
ence to all the Corinthian parties, said, " Is the one Christ
become divided 1 has each party their portion of Christ, as
their own Christ ? No ! there is only one Christ for all, who
was crucified for you, to whom ye were devoted and pledged
by baptism."
We have now to inquire what can be determined respecting
the character and origin of this Christ-party. If we pay any
regard to its being mentioned next to the party of Peter, and
compare it with the collocation of the parties of Apollos and
Paul, we might think it most probable that the relation
between the two former was similar to that which existed
between the two latter ; and that, therefore, a subdivision of
the general party of Jewish Christians was intended. And
as part of these attached themselves to Peter, and part to
James, we might be induced to imagine a party belonging to
James along with the Petrine ; the former more tenacious
and violent in their Judaism; the latter more liberal and mo
derate. But this supposition is not at all favoured by the
Christ their common head, must be represented as a particular party in
relation to the other Corinthian parties, and hence Paul distinguished
them by the name which they assumed in opposition to all party
feelings. If these words in this connexion only contained an historical
enumeration of the various parties, such an interpretation might be
valid. But this is not the case. Paul evidently mentions these parties
in terms of censure. The censure applies to all equally as parties who
substituted something in the place of that single relation to Christ
which alone was of real worth. " Has then Christ become divided?" he
proceeds to ask. " No — he will not allow himself to be divided. Ye
ought all to call yourselves after that one Christ who redeemed you by
his death on the cross, and to whom ye were devoted by baptism."
These words are directed equally against all parties, and perhaps exactly
in this form, owing to the preceding designation of those who arro
gantly named themselves ol rov Xpiarov. But if these persons had
assumed this title in the sense which Paul approved, he would not have
classed them with those who incurred his censure ; these words could
not have applied to them, but he must have expressed his approbation
of their spirit, which must have appeared to him as the only right one.
234 PAUL'S JOURNEY TO ANTIOCH.
designation, 01 TOV XJCHOTOU, for it seems very unnatural that
the adherents of James should so name themselves, as some
have imagined,1 because the epithet ddeXtyog TOV Xptarov was
given to that apostle as a title of honour. There can be no
doubt that if such a party had existed in Corinth, they would
have called themselves oi TOV 'Ia/cw/3ov.
If we believe that the Christ-party was composed of Jewish
Christians, such a view must be stated and developed very
differently in order to bring it nearer to probability.2 The
name oi TOV Xptorou — it may be said — was one which the parti
sans of Peter assumed in opposition to Paul and his disciples,
in order to mark themselves as those who adhered to the
genuine apostles of Christ, from whom they had received the
pure doctrine of Christ, and thus by their teachers were con
nected with Christ himself : and, on the other hand, by ap
plying this title exclusively to their own party, they intended
to brand the other Christians at Corinth as those who did
not deserve the name of Christians, who were not the dis
ciples of Christ, nor the scholars of a genuine apostle of
Christ, but of a man wrho had adulterated the pure Christian
doctrine, and had promulgated a doctrine of his own arbitrary
invention as the doctrine of Christ. This view would appear
perfectly to correspond with the phrase oi TOV Xpiorov, and
might be confirmed by many antithetical references in both
the epistles in which Paul vindicates his genuine apostolic
character, and asserts, that he could say with the same right
as any one else, that he was " of Christ ; " 2 Cor. x. 7. But
while such passages certainly are directed against those who,
on the grounds already mentioned, disputed Paul's apostolic
authority, they by no means prove the existence of such a
^party-name among the Jews. And one difficulty still remains,
namely, that by the position of the phrase ol TOV Xptoroy we
are led to expect the designation of a party in some way
differing from the Petrine, though belonging to the same
general division ; but, according to this view, the Christ-party
1 Attributed by Storr, or as by Berthold, to several
Kvptov among the first preachers of the gospel.
2 As it has lately been developed with much acuteness, in the essay
already referred to, by Bauer, in the Tubinger Zeitschrift fur Theologie,
1831, which no persons can read without instruction, even if they do
not agree with the views of the writer on this point.
PAUL'S JOURNEY TO ANTIOCH. 235
would differ from the Pctrine only in name, which would be
quite contradictory to the relation of this party-name to those
that preceded it.1 Accordingly, this view can only be tenable,
if not a merely formal, but a material difference can be found
between the two last parties. And it might be said that not
all the members of the Petrine party, but only the most
rigid and violent in their Judaism, who would not acknowledge
the Pauline Gentile Christians as standing in communion with
the Messiah, had applied to their Judaizing party the exclu
sive epithet of ol TOV Xpurrov.
But it has always appeared to us to be contrary to his
torical analogy, that those persons who adhered to another
apostle, and considered him alone as genuine in opposition to
Paul, should not name themselves after one whom they looked
upon as the necessary link of their connexion with Christ.
In the epistle itself, we cannot find allusions that would
establish this, since the passages which contain these refer
ences can be very well understood without it.
We cannot hope in this inquiry to attain to conclusions
altogether certain and sure, for the marks and historical data
are not sufficient for the purpose. But we shall best guard
against arbitrary conjectures, and arrive at the truth most
confidently, if we first attend to what may be gathered from
the name itself and its position, in relation to the other party-
names, and then compare this with the whole state of the
Corinthian church. In the results which may thus be
obtained, we must then endeavour to separate the doubtful
and disputable from the certain and probable.
We shall by no means be justified in concluding that,
by virtue of the logical connexion of the two members of
the sentence to one another, the persons who named them
selves after Christ must have borne the same relation to the
Petrine party as the adherents of A polios to those of Paul.
This conclusion, if correct, would be favourable to the view
which we last considered. But the relation of the two
1 Bauer says indeed, p. 77, " The apostle's object in accumulating so
many names, might be to depict the party spirit prevalent in tho
Corinthian church, which showed itself in their delighting in the mu.-
tiplication of sectarian names, \vhich denoted various tints and shades,
but not absolutely distinct parties." But if this were the case, that
explanation only of one of these party-names can be correct, by which a
different shade of party is pointed out.
236 PAUL'S JOURNEY TO ANTIOCH.
members is not logical only, but subject to certain historical
conditions. Paul does not, as in other cases, form the
members of the antithesis merely from the thoughts; but
the manner in which he selected his terms was determined by
matters of fact. As the Judaizers formed in reality only one
party, Paul could designate them only by one name, and
since he was obliged to choose his terms according to the
facts, he could not make the two members exactly correspond
to one another.
From the name of this party viewed in relation to other
party-names, we shall arrive at the following conclusion with
tolerable certainty. There were those who, while they
renounced the apostles, professed to adhere to Christ alone, to
acknowledge him only as their teacher, and to receive what
he announced as truth from himself without the intervention
of any other person. This was such a manifestation of self-
will, such an arrogant departure from the historical process
of development ordained by God in the appropriation of
divine revelation, as would in the issue lead to arbitrary con
duct respecting the contents of Christian doctrine ; for the
apostles were the organs ordained and formed by God, by
whom the doctrine of Christ was to be propagated, and its
meaning communicated to all men. But it might easily
happen, while some were disposed to adhere to Paul alone,
others to Apollos, and a third party to Peter, at last some
persons appeared who were averse to acknowledge any of
these party^names, and professed to adhere to Christ alone,
yet with an arrogant self-will which set aside all human
instrumentality ordained by God. If we now view this
as the result which presents itself to us with tolerable
certainty, that there was at Corinth such a party desirous of
attaching themselves to Christ alone, independently of the
apostles, who constructed in their own way a Christianity
different from that announced by the apostles, we may
imagine three different ways in which they proceeded. For
this object they might make use of a collection of the
sayings of Christ, which had fallen into their hands, and
set what they found there in opposition to the apostolic
character ; or they might pretend to derive their Chris
tianity from an inward source of knowledge, either a super
natural inward light or the light of natural reason, either
PAUL'S JOURNEY TO ANTIOCII. 237
a more mystical or a more rational direction. If we
assented to the first supposition, still we could not satisfy our
selves, without imagining a certain subjective element in the
manner of explaining those discourses of Christ ; for without
the infusion of such an element, the tendency to this sepa
ration from the apostolic instrumentality could not have
originated, and thus the principal question would still remain
to be answered, whether we are to consider the subjective
element as mystical or rational.
According to a hypothesis1 lately developed with great
acuteness, but resting on a number of arbitrary suppositions,
the tendency we are speaking of must have been mystical.
As Paul had considered the immediate revelation of Christ to
himself as equivalent to the outward election of the other
apostles ; so there were other persons who thought that they
could appeal to such an inward revelation or vision, who
from this standing-point assailed the apostolic authority of
Paul, while they sought to establish their own, and threatened
to substitute an inward ideal Christ for the historical Christ.
These representatives of the one-sided mystical tendency,
must have been the principal opponents with whom Paul had
to contend. But in the Epistle to the Corinthians we can
find 110 trace of such a tendency combated by him ; and in
all the passages to which the advocates of this hypothesis
appeal, a reference to it seems to be arbitrarily imposed.
When Paul, at the beginning of the first Epistle to the
Corinthians, so impressively brings forward the doctrine
of Christ the Crucified, and says that he had published this
in all its simplicity without attempting to support it by the
Grecian philosophy, there is not the slightest intimation that
such a tendency (as we have alluded to) existed in the
Corinthian church, which aimed at substituting another
Christ in the room of Christ the Crucified. * In a place where,
by the over-valuation of any kind of philosophy, the simple
gospel was liable to be set in the background, such language
might very properly be used, even though no ideal or mystical
Christ were substituted instead of the historical ; and, it is
evident to what false conclusions we should be led, if we
inferred from such a declaration the existence of a tendency
1 By Schenkel in the essay before mentioned, and advocated by De
Wette in his Commentary on the two Epistles to the Corinthians.
238 PAUL'S JOURNEY TO ANTIOCH.
that denied Christ the Crucified. Paul opposed the preach
ing of Jesus the Crucified to two tendencies, — the Jewish
fondness for signs, and the arrogant philosophy of the Greeks,
but never to a mystical tendency which would depreciate the
historical facts of Christianity. Against a tendency of this
kind, he would certainly have argued in a very different
manner.
The sensuous tendency of the Jewish spirit we should expect
to meet with in the Jewish part of the Corinthian church,
—the pride of philosophy in those who attached themselves to
Apollos, since from what has been said we must suppose that
there was a distinct party composed of such persons. As
Paul when he spoke against the Grecian pride of philosophy,
had this party of Apollos specially in his mind, by a natural
transition he spoke in the next place of his relation to
Apollos.
The passage in 2 Cor. xi. 4 has been adduced to prove that
Paul's opponents preached another Christ and another gospel.
Paul reproached the Corinthians with having given themselves
up to such erroneous teachers. But in that whole section
he occupies himself, not with combating a false doctrine, as
he must have done if the representatives of a mysticism that
undermined the foundations of the Christian faith had been
his opponents ; but he had only to combat the pretensions of
persons who wished to make their own authority supreme
in the Corinthian church, and not to acknowledge him as
an apostle. These people themselves — he says in the con
text — could not deny, that he had performed everything
which could be required of an apostle as founder of a Church,
for he had preached to them the gospel of Jesus the Crucified
arid the Risen, and had communicated to them the powers of
the Holy Spirit by his ministry. With justice these persons,
he said, might appear against him, and assume the manage
ment of the church, if they could really show that there was
another Jesus than the one announced by Paul, another gospel
than that which he proclaimed, or another Holy Spirit than
that whose powers were efficient among them.1
1 I account for the irregularity in the ai>ei'xecr0e, 2 Cor. xi. 4, in this
•way, — that Paul was penetrated with the conviction, that the case,
which in form he had assumed to be possible, was in fact impossible.
This fourth verse is thus connected with the preceding ; I fear that you
PAUL'S JOURNEY TO ANTIOCH. 239
The opponents of these views of this passage believe, liko
many others, that those who call themselves ol TOV \purrov are
mentioned by Paul himself in 2 Cor. x. 7. But here only
such can be understood who boasted of a special internal con
nexion with Christ. But I do not perceive why the epithet
should not be applied to every person who thought that in
any sense they particularly belonged to Christ, or could boast
of any special connexion with him. From the expression Kara
Trpoo-wTrov1 it is clear that these persons boasted of an outward
connexion with Christ, which certainly would not suit the
representatives of a mystical tendency. Indeed, throughout
the whole section he distinguishes tLe opponents of whom ho
is speaking, as those wrho wished to establish a purely outward
preeminence (2 Cor. xi. 8), founded on their Jewish descent,
and their connexion with the apostles chosen by Christ him
self, and with the original church in Palestine. Would Paul,
if he had to do with such idealizing mystics, have only con
ceded to them that they stood in connexion with Christ, that
they could call themselves his servants 1 Would he not from
the first have made it a question whether it was the true
Christ after whom they called themselves ? And how can it
be imagined that Paul, if his opponents were of this class,
would have used expressions which are directed rather against
have departed from Christian simplicity; for if it were not so, you
could not have allowed yourselves to be governed by persons who could
impart to you nothing but what you have received from me ; for I con
sider (v. 5) myself to stand behind the chief apostles in no respect. By
this analysis, the objections of De Wette against this interpretation are
at once obviated. Against the other mode of explanation, I have to
object that it does not suit the connexion with v. 5; that the words
would then be unnecessarily multiplied ; that Paul would then hardly
have used the words Trvev/m.a (Ttpov Aa/^aye-re, which refer only.to receiv
ing the Holy Spirit. I also think that he would then have said, not
'li]ffovv, but Xgurrov, for these mystics would rather have preached
another Christ than this historical person Jesus ; or as, at a later period,
the Gnostics, who held similar notions, taught that there was not a
twofold Jesus, but a twofold Christ, or distinguished between a heavenly
Christ and a human Jesus. On the contrary, according to the inter
pretation which I have followed, Paul would of course say, "another
Jesus than the one I preach," referring to an historical personage, and
the events of his life.
1 A comparison of the passage in 2 Cor. v. 12, (where the eV ifQoau-Rto
is opposed to KaoSia), appears to me to prove that the words must be so
understood; the" antithesis of the outward and the inward is quite in
Paul's style.
240 PAUL'S JOURNEY TO ANTIOCH.
the sensuous perversion of the religious sentiment, and might
easily be misinterpreted in favour of that false spiritualism ?
Would he have said, " Yea, though we have known Christ
after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more ;
but only a spiritual Christ who is exalted above all limited
earthly relations, with whom we can now enter into commu
nion in a spiritual manner, since we have a share in the new
spiritual creation proceeding from him ; " 2 Cor. v. 16, 17.1
When Paul appealed to the revelations imparted to him,
it was not for the confutation of those who supported them
selves only by such inward experiences ; but of those princi
pally who would not acknowledge him as a genuine apostle,
equal to those who were chosen by Christ during his earthly
life, — the same persons, against whom he maintained his in
dependent apostolic commission, as delivered to him by Christ
on his personal appearance to him ; 1 Cor. ix. 1, 2.
Had he been called to oppose the tendency of a false
mysticism and spiritualism, he, who understood so well how
to strike at the root of error and delusion, would have cer
tainly entered more fully into conflict with an erroneous
direction of the religious sentiment, so dangerous to genuine
Christianity, for which he would have had the best opportunity
in treating of the gifts of the Spirit.
We must then consider this view of the Christ-party as
entirely unsupported by this epistle of Paul, and only deduced
from it by a number of arbitrary interpretations.2 While
those whose views we are opposing, trace the origin of such a
party to a certain tendency of Judaism, we, on the contrary,
are obliged to refer it to a Grecian element.
From the peculiar qualities of the Grecian mind, which
was not disposed to submit itself to an objective authority,
but readily moulded everything in a manner conformable to
its own subjectivity, such a tendency as that we have been
1 These words contain a contrast to Ins former Jewish standing-
point, and his earlier conception of the character of the Messiah ; also
to all that was antecedent to Christianity, and independent of it ; for
from this standing-point all things must in some measure become new.
2 I find no ground for a comparison with Montanism, Marcion, and
the Clementines, and I must consider as arbitrary the explanations that
have been given of the first epistle of Clemens Romanus (to which, too,
I cannot ascribe so high an antiquity), in order to elucidate the affairs
of the Corinthian church in the times of the apostle Paul.
PAUL'S JOURNEY TO ANTIOCH. 241
speaking of, might easily proceed. l At that time, there were
many educated and half-educated individuals, who were dis
satisfied with the popular Polytheism. These persons listened
to the words of Christ, which impressed them by their sub
limity and spirituality, and believed that in him they had
met with a reformer of the religious condition of mankind,
such as they had been longing for. We have already re
marked, that a collection of the memorable actions and dis
courses of Christ, had most probably been in circulation from
a very early period. Might they not have procured such a
document, and then constructed by means of it, a peculiar
form of Christian doctrine, modelled according to their
Grecian subjectivity 1 These persons probably belonged to
the class of the wisdom-seeking Greeks, at which we need not
be surprised, although the Christian church made little pro
gress among the higher classes, since in this city a superior
degree of refinement was universally prevalent, and from the
words which tell us, that in the Corinthian church, not many
of the philosophically trained, not many of the highest class
were to be found, we may infer, that some such persons must
have belonged to it ; one individual is mentioned in Romans
xvi. 23, who filled an important civil office in Corinth.2
But against this supposition, the same objections may be
urged, which we made against another view of the Christ-
party, that Paul has not specially directed his argumentation
against the principles of such a party, though they threatened
even more than those of other parties to injure apostolic
Christianity. Still what he says on other occasions, re
specting the only source of the knowledge of truths that rest
on divine Revelation ; — and against the presumption of unen
lightened reason, setting herself up as an arbitress of divine
things ; and on the nothingness of a proud philosophy, (1
Cor. ii. 11,) forms the most powerful argumentation against
1 The reasons alleged by Bauer, in his late essay on this subject, why
such a form of error could not exist at this time, do not convince me.
2 Bauer says (p. 11), " Religion, not philosophy, would lead to Chris
tianity." But it is not altogether improbable, that a person might be
led by a religious interest, which could find no satisfaction in the
popular religion, to philosophy, and by the same interest be carried
onwards to Christianity, without adopting it in its unalloyed simplicity.
Why should not such phenomena, which certainly occurred in the
second century, have arisen from the same causes at this period 1
VOL. I. R
242 PAUL'S JOURNEY TO ANTIOCH.
the fundamental error of this party, though he might not
have it specially in view ; and it is a never-failing character
istic of the apostle's mode of controversy, that he seizes hold
of the main roots of error, instead of busying himself too
much (as was the practice of later ecclesiastical polemics) with
its branches and offsets. Nor is it altogether improbable,
that the adherents of this party were not numerous, and ex
ercised only a slight influence in the church. They occupied
too remote a standing-point to receive much benefit from
the warnings and arguments of Paul, and he had only to set
the church on its guard against an injurious intercourse with
such persons. " Be not deceived," said he, " evil communica
tions corrupt good manners." 1 Cor. xv. 33.
The opposition between the Pauline and Petrine parties, or
the Jewish and Gentile Christians, was in reference to the
relations of life, the most influential of all these party differ
ences, and gave rise to many separate controversies. The
Jews and Jewish Christians when they lived in intercourse
with heathens, suffered much disquietude, if unawares they
partook of any food which had been rendered unclean by its
connexion with idolatrous rites. Various rules were laid
down by the Jewish theologians to determine what was, and
what was not defiling, and various methods were devised for
guarding against such defilement, on which much may be
found in the Talmud. Now, as persons might easily run a
risk of buying in the market portions of the flesh of animals
which had been offered in sacrifice, or might have such set
before them in houses where they were guests, their daily life
was harassed with constant perplexities. Scruples on this
point were probably found, not merely in those who were
avowedly among the Judaizing opponents of Paul, but also
seized hold of many Christians of weaker minds. As faith
in their false gods had previously exercised great influence
over them, so they could not altogether divest themselves of
an impression, that beings whom they had so lately reverenced
as deities, were something more than creatures of the imagina
tion. But from their new standing-point, this reflection of
their ancient faith assumed a peculiar form. As the whole
system of heathenism was in their eyes the kingdom of dark
ness, their deities were now transformed into evil spirits, and
they feared lest, by partaking of the flesh consecrated to
PAUL'S JOURNEY TO ANTIOCII. 243
them,1 they should come into fellowship with evil spirits.2
That these scruples affected not merely Judaizers, but other
Christians also, is evident from a case in reference to which
Paul gives specific directions. He supposes, namely, the case,
that such weak believers were guests at the table of a heathen.3
Now we may be certain, that none who belonged to the
Judaizers would make up their minds to eat with a heathen.4
1 Thus Peter, in the Clementines, says to the heathens, irpo$dff(i
ruv \eyop.fvuv IfpoQvruv -^aXfTruv 5ai/j.6^wt/ ^uTri/nTrAcurfle. Horn. xi.
§ 15.
2 The passage in 1 Cor. viii. 7, may be understood of persons who
though they had passed over to Christian monotheism, were still in
some measure entangled in polytheism, and could not entirely free
themselves from the belief that the gods whom they had formerly
served were divinities of a subordinate class ; so that now such persons
— since by partaking of the flesh of the victims they supposed that they
eutcred again into connexion with these divine beings — would be led
to imagine, that their former idolatry was not wholly incompatible with
Christianity, and thus might easily form an amalgamation of heathenism
and Christianity. In later times, something of this kind we allow took
place, in the transition from polytheism to monotheism ; but in this
primitive age, Christianity came at once into such direct conflict on
these particulars with heathenism, that an amalgamation of this kind
cannot be thought natural. Whoever had not wholly renounced
idolatry would certainly not be received into the Christian church, nor
would have so mildly passed judgment on such a weakness of.faith.
From such passages as Gal. v. 20, 1 Cor. vi. 9. we cannot conclude with
certainty that, among those who had professed Christianity, there would
be such who, after they had been led to Christianity by an impression
which was not deep enough, allowed themselves again to join in the
worship of idols; for Paul might here designedly class the vices he
named with idolatry, in order to indicate that whoever indulged in the
vices connected with idolatry, deserved to be ranked with idolaters, li
we compare these passages with 1 Cor. v. 11, it will appear that some
such instances occurred of a relapse into idolatry, but those who were
thus guilty of participating in idolatry must have been excluded from
all Christian communion.
3 The scrupulosity of the Jews in this respect appears in the Jewish-
Christian work of the Clementines (though on other points sufficiently
liberal), where the following words are ascribed to the apostte Peter^:
TpaTTffrs tdvwv OUK o.iro\avo^fv, are 8)) oi»5e o-vvf<TTiaff6ai avTots Svvd-
/j.fi>oi 5ia rb aKaQdpruia^Tovs &iovv. No exception could be made in favour
of parents, children, brothers, or sisters.
4 By the rls, 1 Cor. x. 28, on account of the relation of the first rls,
v. 27, we understand it to mean the same person, the heathen host, —
and it would be a very unlikely thing that such a person would remind
his Christian guest, that he had set before him meat that had been
ottered to idols ; but we must rather refer it to the weak Christian,
who considered it to be his duty to warn his unscrupulous brother
244 PAUL'S JOURNEY TO ANTIOCH.
Those who in their own estimation were Pauline Christians,
ridiculed a scrupulosity that thus made daily life uneasy, and
fell into an opposite error. They had indeed formed right
conceptions of the Pauline principles in reference to theory,
but erred in the application, because the spirit of love and of
wisdom was wanting. They said : " Idols are in themselves
nothing, mere creatures of the imagination; hence, also the
eating of the flesh that has been devoted to them, is a thing
in itself indifferent. The Christian is bound by no law in
such outward or indifferent things ; all things are free to him ;
Travra e&ortv was their motto. They appealed to their know
ledge, to the power which they possessed as Christians; y vwaic,
Qovoia, were their watchwords. They had no consideration
for the necessities of their weaker brethren ; they easily
seduced many among them to follow their example from false
shame, that they might not be ridiculed as narrow-minded
and scrupulous ; such an one, who allowed himself to be in
duced by outward considerations to act contrary to his con
victions, would afterwards be disturbed in his conscience.
" Thus," said Paul, " through thy knowledge shall the weak
brother perish for whom Christ died."1 Many went such
lengths in this pride of knowledge and this abuse of Christian
freedom, that they scrupled not to take part in the festive
entertainments, consisting of the flesh that was left after the
sacrifices had been presented, which the heathens were wont
to give their friends ; and thus they were easily carried on to
indulge in those immoral excesses, which by the decrees of
the apostolic convention at Jerusalem, were forbidden in con
nexion with the eating of flesh sacrificed to idols. In fact,
we here find the germ of a one-sided over-valuation of the
oretic illumination, a misunderstanding of Christian freedom,
a false adiaphorism in morals, which a later pseudo-pauliiie
gnostic2 tendency carried so far as to justify the grossest im-
against partaking of such food, the same weak Christian whose con
science is spoken of in v. 29.
1 We might here make use of the words attributed to Christ taken
from an apocryphal gospel, and quoted in Luke vi. 4, by the Codex
Cantab. : rfj avrf 7]fJ.epa 6fa.vd/j.ev6s rit/a fpya£6/j.fi>ov ry cra/3/3ar<:« e?Trer/
avrqi' frydpooirf, e? JJLZV olSa? rl Troifts, jUa/capioy el' eJ 5e ju,^ dlSas, eTfiKardpa-
ray Hal TrapajSaTTjs e? rov v6fj.ou. — See Das Lebsn Jesu, p. 140.
2 As was the case with those whom Porphyry mentions in his book
De Abstinentia Carnis, i. § 43, who agree in their mode of expression
PAULS JOURNEY TO ANTIOCH. 245
moralities. But such wickedness certainly cannot be laid to
the charge of the perverters of Christian freedom at Corinth.
Though the heathen corruption of morals had infected many
members of the Corinthian church, yet they were far from
wishing to justify this immorality on such grounds, and had
this been the case, Paul would have spoken with far greater
severity against such a palliation of sin.1
very remarkably with the unscrupulous persons described by Paul : 01)
•yap r]fj.a.s fjio\\>Vfi TO Ppwpara (said they), ctxnrfp oi)5e TTJJ/ 6d\aTrav TO.
pvirapa T&V pfv/j-druv' Kvpi€uofj.fv (like the Corinthian t£ovffid£o/j.(v) yap
TU>V a.ira.vT<i)v, Kadairfg T) Qa.\arrffa TUV vypwv Travrw. 'Eat' fu\a/3'fi6w/uiei>
< TOV
They appeal to their fivQbs
1 The departure from Christian truth in theory to so great an extent
in the church at Corinth, has been received by many, owing to a mis
understanding of the apostle's language. They have been led to enter
tain this opinion, from believing that there is a strict objective con
nexion between what Paul says in 1 Cor. vi. 12, and the beginning of
v. 13, and what he says of the words rb 8e <rw^a, and from supposing
that from v. 12, he had the same thought in view. But a comparison
of vi. 12, with x. 23, will show, that Paul at first meant only to speak
of the partaking of the meat offered to idols, and to explain the subject
more fully. With this reference, he had said in v. 13, the food and the
stomach, whose wants it satisfies, are both transitory, designed only for
this earthly existence. On these things the essence of the Christian
calling cannot depend, which relates to the eternal and the heavenly.
Compare 1 Cor. viii. 8, Rom. xiv. 17, Matt. xv. 17 ; and thus he was led
to the contrast, " but the form alone of the body is transitory." Ac
cording to its nature, the body is designed to be an imperishable organ
devoted to the Lord, which will be awakened again in a nobler glorified
form for a higher existence. It must, therefore, be even now withdrawn
from the service of lust, and be formed into a sanctified organ belonging
to the Lord. It might be, that there was floating in the apostle's mind
a possible misunderstanding of his words, against which he wished to
guard, or his controversy with the deniers of the doctrine of the resur
rection at Corinth. In either case he would be led by these recol
lections to leave the topic with which he began, and to speak against
those excesses in the Corinthian church of which he had not thought at
first., ^ And this again led him to answer the questions proposed to him
respecting the relation of the sexes. After that he returns again, at
the beginning of the 8th chapter, to the subject of " things offered to
idols," but from another point ; and after several digressions to other
subjects, 'which may easily be explained from the association of ideas, he
begun again in ch. x. 23, the exposition of his sentiments in the
same form as in ch. vi. 12. What Billroth has said in his commen
tary, p. 83, against this interpretation, that thus we lose the evident
contrast and parallelism between the words TO Ppwuara ry Koi\ia, «al
T] KOL\ia TO?S Ppw/Aaffi, and rb Se trw/ia ov rrf nopveiai, a\\a rtf Kvpiu, Kal f>
i, appears without foundation. It is only assumed that
246 PAUL'S JOURNEY TO ANTIOCH.
The opposition between the Petrine and Pauline parties, had
probably an influence on the different views of the married
and single life. It was indeed the peculiar effect of Chris
tianity, that it elevated all the moral relations based in
human nature, in their pure human form, to a higher signifi
cance, so that after the original fountain of divine life had
assumed humanity, in order, by revealing himself in it, to
sanctify and glorify it — the striving after the godlike, was no
more to show itself in an unearthly direction, overstepping the
bounds of human nature, but everywhere, the Divine human
ized itself, the divine life revealed itself in the forms of human
development. Yet, as at first, before the elevating and all-
penetrating influence of Christianity had manifested itself in
all the relations of life, the earnest moral spirit of the gospel
came into conflict with a world under the domination of
sinful lusts • so, for a short time, an ascetic tendency averse
from the marriage union (which though not in accordance
with the spirit of the gospel, might be excited by the opposi
tion it made to the corruption of the world) — would easily
make its appearance, especially since there was an expectation
of the speedy passing away of all earthly things, antecedently
to the perfect development of the kingdom of God. The con
viction, that ere the kingdom of God would attain its per
fection, the earthly life of mankind must in all its forms be
penetrated by the life of the kingdom of God, and that all
these forms would be made vehicles of its manifestation — this
conviction could be formed only by degrees from the historical
course of development. And as to what concerns marriage
especially, Christ had certainly by presenting the idea of it as
a moral union, requisite for the complete development of the
type of humanity as transformed by the divine principle of
life, and thus for the realization of the kingdom of God in a
moral union of the sexes, designed for their mutual complete-
ment — by all this, he had at once disowned the ascetic con
tempt of marriage, which views it only on its sensuous side,
and rejects its true idea as realized in the divine life. Yet till
Paul formed this contrast from a more general view of the subject, and
without limiting it to a perversion of the doctrine of Christian liberty,
actually existing in the church. What De Wette has lately advanced
in his commentary against this interpretation, has not altered my views,
though I have examined with pleasure the reasons advanced by this
distinguished critic.
THE CHURCH AT CORINTH. 247
Christianity had penetrated more into the life of humanity,
and thereby had realized this idea of marriage as a peculiar
form of manifestation belonging to the kingdom of God, zeal
for the kingdom of God might view marriage as a relation
tending to distract the mind, and to withdraw it from that one
fundamental direction. And besides, though the Christian
view in all its purity and completeness, was in direct opposi
tion to the ascetic over- valuation of celibacy ; yet Christianity
was equally repugnant to the ancient Jewish notion, according
to which celibacy was considered as a disgrace and a curse.
As Christianity made everything depend on the disposition,
as it presented the means of salvation and improvement for
all conditions of human kind, and a higher life which would
find its way into all states of suffering humanity, and open a
source of happiness under suffering ; — so it also taught, that
a single life, where circumstances rendered it necessary, might
be sanctified and ennobled by its relation to the kingdom of
God, and become a peculiar means for the furtherance of that
object. l
Thus Christianity had to maintain a conflict in the
Corinthian church with two opposing one-sided tendencies of
the moral sentiments, — the ascetic over- valuation of celibacy,
and the tendency which would enforce marriage as an uncon
ditional, universal law, without admitting that variety of the
social relations, under which the kingdom of God was capable
of exhibiting itself.
The first tendency certainly did not proceed from the
Judaizing section of the church, for those apostles to whose
authority the Petrine party specially appealed, were married ;
and took their wives with them on their missionary journeys ;
1 Cor. ix. 5 ; besides, that such ascetism was totally foreign
to their national manners. From the Hebrew standing-point
1 Compare Matt. xix. 11, 12; Leben Jesu, p. 567. If we think of the
desolations that took place at the fall of the Roman Empire, and the
national migrations, — how important was it for such times, that Chris
tianity should allow a point of view from which a single life might be
esteemed as a charism, though this point of view might be chosen
owing to an ascetic bias. How important that that which was occa
sioned by the pressure of circumstances, should be made a means of
blessing, (by the education of the rude nations effected by the monkish
orders).— See the valuable remarks of F. v. Meyer, in his review of
Olshausen's Commentary.
248 THE CHURCH AT CORINTH.
a fruitful marriage appeared as a peculiar blessing and
honour ; while unmarried life, or a childless marriage, was
esteemed a disgrace. Though by the feeling of sadness at the
passing away of the glory of the ancient theocracy, and of
dissatisfaction with the existing religion, and by the infusion
of foreign oriental elements, ascetic tendencies were produced
in the later Judaizers; still the spirit of the original Hebrew1
system made itself felt, and counteracted to a certain extent
the ascetic tendencies, both in Judaism and Christianity.2
But among the Pauline party, an over-valuation of the single
life more or less prevailed, and in this respect they thought
themselves countenanced by the example of their apostle. The
Judaizers, on the other hand, remained on the ancient Hebrew
standing-point, as uncompromising opponents of celibacy.3
The opposition against the rigidness of Judaism, and that
false liberalism which actuated many, disposed them to break
through several wholesome moral restraints. It was main
tained, and with justice, that Christianity had broken down
the wall of separation between the sexes, in reference to the
concerns of the higher life, and had freed woman from her
state of servitude. But, seduced by the spirit of false freedom,
individuals had been led to overstep the limits prescribed by
nature and sound morals, and rendered sacred by Christianity.
Women, contrary to the customs prevalent among the Greeks, 4
1 Hence also the ascetic tendency of the Essenes was corrected by a
party who introduced marriage into this sect.
2 This opposition appeared among the later descendants of the
Judaizers of this age. Thus in the Clementines, it is given as the
characteristic of a true prophet, -ya^ov vofjurevei, eyKpdreiav tr^xwpe?,
Horn. iii. § 16. It is enjoined on the overseers of the church, § 68, VIM
I*)) IJ.&VQV KarfTTfiyfTcaaav TOVS ydfiovs, a\\a KOL rcav TrpofiepyKOTtiov.
Epiphanius says of that class of Ebionites whom he describes, that they
reject Trapdcvia', " avayKa^ovcri 8e teal trap' 7)\LKiav *Kyatj.i£ov<n TOVS veovs
<=! fvirpo-rrris 87J0ei> ruv irap' avro'is Sioacncdhwv." Similar things are found
iii the religious books of the Zabians against monkery.
3 When Paul in 1 Cor. vii. 40, recommends celibacy in certain cases,
he appears to have in view the Judaizers, who set themselves against an
apostolic authority ; for in the words 8o«:<£ 8e KO.JU Trv€Vfj.a 6eov fyftv,
he appears to contradict those who believed and asserted that they alone
had the Spirit of God.
4 This appears to me the most simple and natural interpretation.
AVhat has been said by some respecting the difference of the Roman and
Greek customs of aperto or operto capite sacra faccre, seems hardly
applicable here.
THE CHURCH AT CORINTH*. 249
appeared in the Christian assemblies unveiled, and, putting
themselves on an equality with the men, assumed the office of
public teachers.
The want of Christian love was also evinced by the dis
putes that arose respecting property, which the parties were
not willing to decide, as had been hitherto customary in the
Jewish and Christian churches, by arbitrators chosen from
among themselves ; these Gentile Christians, boastful of their
freedom, set aside the scruples which restrained Jewish
Christians, and appealed without hesitation to a heathen
tribunal.
By this defect in the spirit of Christian love, those religious
feasts which were particularly fitted to represent the loving
communion of Christians and to maintain its vigour, lost their
true significance, those Christian Agapce, which composed one
whole with the celebration of the Last Supper. At these love-
feasts, the power of Christian fellowship was shown in over
coming all the diiferences of rank and education ; ricli and
poor, masters and slaves, partook with one another of the
same simple meal. But in the Corinthian church, where
these differences were so strongly marked, this could not be
attained. There existed among the Greeks an ancient custom
of holding entertainments at which each one brought his food
with him, and consumed it alone.1 The Agapae in the
Corinthian church were conducted on the plan of this ancient
custom, although the peculiar object of the institution was so
different ; consequently, the distinction of rich and poor was
rendered peculiarly prominent, and the rich sometimes in
dulged in excesses which desecrated the character of these
meetings.
The predominant Grecian character and constitution of the
Corinthian church, appeared in zeal for mutual communica
tion by speaking in their public assemblies, and for the cul
tivation of those charisms which related to oral religious
instruction ; but it took a one-sided direction, which showed
its baneful influence at a later period in the Greek Church, an
1 See Xenopli. Memorabil. iii. 14. The a-up-irSa-ia <£i\i/c& bore a greater
resemblance to the Agapce ; at these feasts, all that each brought was
made a part of a common meal, which the chronicler Johannes Malala
mentions as continuing to be practised even in his time. Seevii. Chro
nograph, e collect. Niebuhr. p. 180.
250 THE CHURCH AT CORINTH.
aspiring rather after extraordinary powers of discourse, than
after a life of eminent practical godliness. * This unpractical
tendency, and the want of an all-animating and guiding love,
were also shown in their mode of valuing and applying the
various kinds of charisms which related to public speaking ;
in their one-sided over-valuation of gifts they sought for the
more striking and dazzling, such as speaking in new tongues,
in preference to those that were more adapted to general
edification.
To which of the parties in the Corinthian church the
opponents of the doctrine of the resurrection belonged, can
not be determined with certainty, since we have no precise
account of their peculiar tenets. No other source of informa
tion is left open to us, than what we may infer from the
objections against the doctrine of the resurrection which Paul
seems to presuppose, and from the reasons alleged by him in
its favour, and adapted to the standing-point from which they
assailed it. As to the former, Paul might construct these
objections, (as he had often done on other occasions when
developing an important subject,) without our being autho
rized to infer that they were exactly the objections which had
been urged by the impugners of the doctrine. And as to the
latter, in his mode of establishing the doctrine, he might
follow the connexion with other Christian truths in which
this article of faith presented itself to his own mind, without
being influenced by the peculiar mode of the opposition made
to it.
When Paul, for example, adduced the evidence for the
truth of the resurrection of Christ, this will not justify the
inference, that his Corinthian opponents denied the resur
rection of Christ ; for, without regarding their opposition, he
might adopt this line of argument, because to his own mind,
faith in the resurrection of Christ was the foundation of
faith in the resurrection of the redeemed. He generally
joins together the doctrines of the resurrection and of im
mortality, and hence some may infer that his opponents gene
rally denied personal immortality. But still it remains
a question, whether Paul possessed exact information respect-
1 Paul reminds them in 1 Cor. iv. 20, that a participation in the
kingdom of God is shown not in high-sounding words, but in the power
of the life.
THE CHURCH AT CORINTH. 251
ing the sentiments of these persons, or whether he did not
follow the connexion in which the truths of the Christian
faith were presented to his own mind, and his habit of seeing
in the opponents of the doctrines of the resurrection those
also of the doctrine of immortality, since both stood or fell
together in the Jewish polemical theology.
This controversy on the resurrection has been deduced
from the ordinary opponents of that doctrine among the
Jews, the Sadducees, and it has hence been concluded that it
originated with the Judaizing party in the Corinthian church.
This supposition appears to be confirmed by the circumstance
that Paul particularly mentions, as witnesses for the truth of
Christ's resurrection, Peter and James, who were the most
distinguished authorities of the Judaizing party ; • but this
cannot be esteemed a proof, for he must on any supposition
have laid special weight on the testimony of the apostles col
lectively, and of these in particular, for the appearance of
Christ repeated to them after his resurrection. Had he
thought of the Sadducees, he would have joined issue with
them on their peculiar mode of reasoning from the alleged
silence of the Pentateuch, just as Christ opposed the Sad
ducees from this standing-point. But we nowhere find an
example of the mingling of Sadduceeism and Christianity, and
as they present no points of connexion with one another, such
an amalgamation is in the highest degree improbable.
A similar reply must be made to those who imagine that
the controversy on the doctrine of the resurrection, and the
denial of that of immortality, may be explained from a
mingling of the Epicurean notions with Christianity. Yet
the passages in 1 Cor. xv. 32 — 35, may appear to be 'in
favour of this view, if we consider the practical consequence
deduced by Paul from that denial of the resurrection as
a position laid down in the sense of the Epicureans, if we
find in that passage a warning against their God-forgetting
levity, and against the infectious example of the lax morals
which were the offspring of their unbelief. Yet the objec
tions would not apply with equal force to this interpretation,
as to the first.1 From the delicacy and mobility of the
Grecian character, so susceptible of all kinds of impressions,
we can more easily imagine such a mixture of contradictory
1 As Bauer correctly remarks in his Essay on the Christ-party, p. 81.
252 THE- CHURCH AT CORINTH.
mental elements and such inconsistency, than from the stiff
ness of Jewish nationality, and the strict, dogmatic, decided
nature of Saduceeism. To this may be added, that the spirit
of the times, so very much disposed to Eclecticism and
Syncretism, tended to bring nearer one another and to
amalgamate modes of thinking that, at a different period,
would have stood in most direct and violent opposition. Yet
it would be difficult to find in Christianity, whether viewed
on the doctrinal or ethical side, anything which could attract
a person who was devoted to the Epicurean philosophy, and
induce him to include something Christian in his Syncretism,
unless we think of something entirely without reference to
all the remaining peculiarities of Christianity, relating only
to the idea of a monotheistic universal religion, in opposition
to the popular superstitions, and some moral ideas detached
from their connexion with the whole system ; but this would
be at least not very probable, and might more easily happen
in an age when Christianity had long been fermenting in the
general mind, rather than on its first appearance in the
heathen world. All history, too, testifies against this sup
position; for we always see the Epicurean philosophy in
hostility to Christianity, and never in the first ages do we
find any approximation of the two standing-points. As
to the only passage which may appear to favour this view,
1 Cor. xv. 32 — 35, it is not clear that the opponents of the
doctrine of the resurrection had really brought forward the
maxims here stated. It might be, that Paul here intended
only to characterise that course of living which it appeared to
him must proceed from the consistent carrying out of a
philosophy that denied the distinction of man to eternal life ;
for the idea of eternal life and of the reality of a striving
directed to eternal things were to him correlative ideas. And
when persons who had made a profession of Christianity could
fall into a denial of eternal life, it appeared to him as an
infatuation of mind proceeding from dpapria, and hurrying a
man away to sinful practice ; a forgetfulness of God, or the
mark of a state of estrangement from God, in which a man
knows nothing of God. It is much more probable, that
philosophically educated Gentile Christians were prejudiced
against the doctrine of the resurrection from another stand
ing-point, as in later times ; the common rude conception
THE CHURCH AT CORINTH. 253
of this doctrine which Paul particularly combated probablv
gave rise to many such prejudices. The objections, how
can such a body as the present be united to the soul in
a higher condition, and how is it possible that a body which
has sunk into corruption should be restored again ; these
objections would perfectly suit the standing-point of a
Gentile Christian, who had received a certain philosophical
training, although it cannot be affirmed with certainty, that
precisely these objections were brought forward in the pre
sent instance. And if we are justified in supposing, that
by the Christ-party is meant one that, from certain expressions
of Christ which they explained according to their subjective
standing-point, constructed a peculiar philosophical Chris
tianity, it would be most probable that such persons formed
an idea of a resurrection only in a spiritual sense, and ex
plained in this manner the expressions of Christ himself
relating to the resurrection, as we must in any case assume
that those who wished to be Christians and yet denied the
future resurrection, were far removed from the true standard
of Christian doctrine in other respects, and had indulged
in arbitrary explanations of such of the discourses of Christ
as they were acquainted with.
It may be asked, where, and in what manner did Paul
receive the first accounts of these disturbances in the
Corinthian church? From several expressions of Paul in
his Second Epistle to the Corinthians,1 it appears, that
when he wrote his admonitory epistle, he had been there
again, but only for a very short time, and that he must
have had many painful experiences of the disorders among
them, though they might not all have appeared during his
visit2
1 Between which and the First Epistle, Paul could have taken no
journey to Corinth, and yet in the First Epistle, as we shall presently
see, there is a passage which must be most naturally referred to a pre
ceding second journey to that city.
' 2 I must now declare myself, after repeated examinations, more
decidedly than in the first edition, in favour of the view maintained by
Blcek in his valuable essay in the Theologischai Studien und Kritiken,
1830, part Hi., which has since been approved by Rlickert, — by Schott,
in his discussion of some important chronological points in the history
of the apostle Paul, Jena, 1832, — and by Credner, in his Introduction to
the New Testament. — and by others. Though some of the passages
adduced as evidence for this opinion admit of another interpretation,
254 THE CHURCH AT CORINTH.
Owing to the breaks in the narrative of the Acts^ it is
difficult to decide when this second visit to Corinth took
yet, taken altogether, they establish the second visit of Paul to this
church as an undeniable fact. The passage in 2 Cor. xii. 14, compared
with v. 13, we must naturally understand to mean, that, as he had
already stayed twice at Corinth without receiving the means of support
from the church, he was resolved so to act on his third visit, as to be
no more a burden to them than on the two former occasions. If verse
14 be understood to mean (a sense of which the words will admit), that
he was planning to come to them a third time, we must supply what is
not expressly said, that he would certainly execute this resolution, and
yet the words so understood do not quite suit the connexion. According
to the most approved reading of 2 Cor. ii. 1, the iraXiv must be referred
to the whole clause & AVTTTJ eAte??, and then it follows, that Paul had
already once received a painful impression from the Corinthians in a
visit made to them, which cannot refer to his first residence among
them, and therefore obliges us to suppose a second already past. In
the passage 2 Cor. xii. 21, which cannot here be brought in proof, it is
indeed possible, and, according to the position of the words, is most
natural, to connect the Trd\iv with eA0oVra ; but we may be allowed to
suppose that the iraXiv belongs to Tcnretz/cto-T?, but is placed first for
emphasis. In this case, the introduction of the ird\iv, which yet is not
added to €\Bwv in v. 20, as well as the position of the whole clause
ir'd\iv f\06vra, is made good, and the connexion with what follows
favours this interpretation. Paul, in v. 21, expresses his anxiety lest
God should humble him a second time among them when he came.
Accordingly, we should thus understand xiii. 1, following the simplest
interpretation, though this passage may be otherwise understood, (if it
be supposed to mean, that as he had already twice announced his
intended coming to Corinth, having now a third time repeated his
threatening, he would certainly execute it). " I am now intending for
a third time to come to you, and as what is supported by two or three
witnesses must be valid, so now what I have threatened a second and a
third time will certainly be fulfilled. I have (when I was with you a
second time) told beforehand, those who had sinned, and all the rest,
and I now say it to them a second time, as if I were with you — though
I now (this now is opposed to formerly, since when present among
them, he had expressed the same sentiments,) that if I come to you
again, I will not act towards you with forbearance," (as Paul, when he
came to them a second time, still behaved with forbearance, though he
had already sufficient cause for dissatisfaction with them.) De Wette,
indeed, objects against this interpretation, that the mention of the first
visit of Paul to Corinth would be in this case quite superfluous ; but if,
during his second visit, he had not acted with severity towards the
Corinthians, but intended to do so on this third occasion, because they
had not listened to his admonitions, he would have reason to mention
his two first visits together, in order to mark more distinctly in what
respect the third would be distinguished from the other two. And
though, during his first residence among them, his experience was on
the whole pleasing, yet in this long period many things must have
THE CHURCH AT CORINTH. 255
place. If the Second Epistle to the Corinthians had not been
addressed at the same time to the churches in Achaia, we
might suppose that Paul, during his long residence at Corinth,
had taken missionary or visitation journeys throughout other
parts of Achaia, and that he then once more returned to
Corinth, only for a short time, in order to fetch Aquila for
the journeys he had in prospect. It appears that on this
journey he was exposed to many dangers, and that on his
deliverance from them he made the vow mentioned above.
But since the second epistle was also directed to the churches
in Achaia, this supposition, in order to be maintained, must
be so modified, that Paul could have made in the meantime
another longer journey, and returned back again to Achaia —
which it is not easy to admit. Or we must suppose, that
during his longer residence at Ephesus, of which we are now
speaking, he undertook another missionary journey, and called
in passing at Corinth ; or that, by the anxiety which the
news brought from Corinth excited in his mind, he was
induced to go thither from Ephesus, but on account of cir
cumstances which called him back to Ephesus, he could stay
only a short time with the Corinthian church, and therefore
gave them notice of a longer residence among them. But it
does not well agree with this last supposition, that Paul dis
tinguishes this visit as one that took place. "by the way." And
especially if it took place not long before the first epistle, we
might the more expect allusions to it in that. The communi
cations between Paul and the Corinthian church seem also to
presuppose, that he had not been with them for a considerable
time. There remains only a third supposition, that the visita
tion which he made after his departure from Antioch to the
churches earlier founded by him (Acts xviii. 23) before he
entered on a fresh field of labour, was of greater extent than
is distinctly stated in that passage, and that it extended as
far as Achaia. Perhaps he then travelled first from Phrygia
happened with which he could not be satisfied, but which he treated
gently, trusting to the future progress of their Christian life. We may
find in the first epistle, a trace of this his second residence at Corinth.
"When in 1 Cor. xvi. 7, Paul says, that he intended not now to see them
by the way, &pn and its position allows us to assume a reference to an
earlier visit, which he made only " by the way," Iv iraptSu, and as this
was so very transient, we may account for his making no further allusions
to it in the first epistle.
256 THE CHURCH AT CORINTH.
towards the coast of the Mediterranean Sea, and then sailed
to Hellas. Possibly he then found at Corinth Apollos who
had proceeded thither, when Paul coming from Antioch,
passed through the upper parts of Asia (Acts xix. I),1 and
perhaps joined him on his return, and went with him to
Ephesus.
We must therefore at all events suppose, that Paul had
obtained his first knowledge of the alteration for the worse in
the Corinthian church by his own observation. He could not
indeed have witnessed the strife of the various parties, for, as
appears from 1 Cor. xi. 12, he heard of this first at Ephesus
from the report of strangers. But already he must have had
the painful experience, that in a church which once was
inspired with so much Christian zeal, their old vices and
enormities again appeared under a Christian guise. He
admonished them for their improvement, and threatened to
use severer measures, if, when he returned from Ephesus, he
should find that no improvement had taken place. At Ephe
sus, he could obtain information respecting the effect of his
last admonitions on the church.
But he received worse news than he expected of the cor
ruption of morals in the Corinthian church, and especially
of the vicious conduct of an individual who had maintained
unlawful intercourse with his step-mother. Hence, in an
epistle 2 he addressed to the Corinthian church, he reproached
them with allowing such a man still to remain among them,
1 We must in this instance interpolate Paul's journey to Corinth,
Acts xix. 1, and suppose that since the author of the Acts knew nothing
of the wider extent of Paul's visitation at that time, he represented
that he immediately betook himself from Upper Asia to Ephesus.
2 The epistle in which Paul wrote this could not at any rate be that
still retained by the Armenian church, which treats of subjects entirely
different, and must be an answer to an. earlier Epistle to the Corin
thians. This pretended Epistle to the Corinthians by Paul, and their
answer, bear on them, as is now universally acknowledged, the most
undeniable marks of spuriousness. The account of the opponents of the
doctrine of the resurrection at Corinth, who were thought similar to
later deniers of it among the Gentiles, connected with the tales of Simon
Magus, and the account of the Jewish founders of sects, by Hege-
sippus, gave an idle monk the inducement to put together .these frag
ments of Pauline phrases. If they were quoted in a genuine homily of
Gregory ^WTICTTT/S, they were perhaps in existence in the 3d century,
but this address of Gregory to the newly baptized may itself be sup
posititious.
THE CHURCH AT CORINTH. 257
•and required them to renounce all connexion with so aban
doned a character.1
It was indeed sufficiently evident what Paul here intended,
that the Corinthians should not only exclude from the
meetings of the church those who called themselves Christians,
but denied Christianity by their vicious lives ; but also abstain
from all kind of intercourse with them, in order to testify em
phatically that such a merely outward profession was of no
value, to bring these persons to a sense of their guilt, and to
declare practically to the heathen world, that whoever did not
exemplify the Christian doctrine in the conduct of his life,
must not flatter himself that he was a Christian. But since
Paul had not thought it necessary to add, that he spoke only
of the vicious in the church, and not of all persons in general
who lived in such vices, the Corinthians did not think of the
limitation which the thing itself might easily have suggested,
and thus they were thrown into perplexity, how to comply
with such an injunction ; for how could they, while living in
the midst of an evil world, renounce all intercourse with the
vicious? They addressed a letter to the apostle, in which
they stated their perplexity, and proposed several other
questions on doubtful cases in the concerns of the church.
]3y means of this letter, and the messengers who brought
it, he obtained a jnore complete knowledge of the concerns
and state of the church. In the communication which con
tained his reply to the questions proposed, he poured forth
his whole heart full of paternal love to the church, and
entered minutely into all the necessities of their situation.
This epistle, a master-piece of apostolic wisdom in church
1 It rnay be asked, whether Paul in the last epistle treated merely of
the case which was immediately under consideration in the Corinthian
church, only of abstaining from intercourse with iropvois, or whether he
expressly spoke of such who had fallen into other notorious vices; — the
covetous, who had no regard for the property of others ; the slanderous,
those addicted to drinking, those who took any part whatever in the
worship of idols. The manner in which he expresses himself in
1 Cor. v. 9 — 11, might signify, though not decisively, that since he was
obliged to guard his words against misapprehension, he took advantage
of this opportunity, to give a wider application to the principles they
expressed, which he certainly had from the beginning in his mind, yet
had not occasion to mention in his first epistle, which bore no one par
ticular point. At all events, it is important to know how far Paul
extended the strictness of church discipline.
VOL. I. S
258 THE CHURCH AT CORINTH.
government, contains much that was important in reference
to the change produced by Christianity on the various rela
tions of life. It was probably conveyed by the messengers on
their return to Corinth.
Paul condemned in an equal degree all party feeling in the
Corinthian church ; his salutation in verse 2, was opposed to
it, and suited to remind all that they equally belonged to one
church, which composed all the faithful and redeemed. He
taught them that Christ was their sole head, to whom they
must all adhere — that all human labourers were to be con
sidered only as instruments, by each of whom God worked
according to the peculiar standing-point on which God had
placed him, in order to promote in the hearts of their fellow-
men a work which they were all destined to serve. They
ought to be far from venturing to boast that they had this or
that man for their teacher — for such boasting, by which they
owned themselves dependent on man, was rather a denial of '
their being Christians ; for if they only, as became Christians,
referred everything to Christ, to whom they were indebted for
communion with God, they might view all things as designed
to serve them, and as belonging to them ; those sublime ex
pressions in 1 Cor. iii. 21, show how the truest spiritual
freedom and the highest elevation of soul are the offspring of
Christian humility. This general truth jn. reference to the
manner in which all Christian teachers (each according to his
peculiar qualifications) were to be estimated and made use of,
he applies particularly to his relation to Apollos ; of whom he
could speak most reservedly and unsuspectedly, since he was a
man with whom he stood in the closest connexion, and who
had adopted his own peculiar form of doctrine. To those
persons who could not find in his simple preaching the wisdom
which they sought after, and preferred Apollos as a teacher
more according to their Grecian taste,1 he said, that it was
wrong on their part to regret the absence of such wisdom in.
his preaching, for the fountain of all genuine wisdom, the
wisdom of God, was riot to be found in any scheme of philo-
1 We have already spoken of the reference of this whole section,
1 Cor. i. 1 — 18. We need not enter more at large into the dispute re
specting the meaning proposed by Eichorn and others— that Paul here
directed his argumentation against Grecian Sophists, who had made an
entrance into the church, and threatened to seduce many into unbelief.
THE CHURCH AT CORINTH. 259
f ophy, but only in the doctrine of the crucified Jesus, the
Saviour of the world, which he had made the central-point of
his preaching; but this divine wisdom could only be found and
understood by a disposition that was susceptible of what was
divine. For this reason, he had never yet been able to lead
them by his discourses to perceive in the simple doctrine of
the gospel, (which in the eyes of the world was foolishness,)
the depths of divine wisdom, because an ungodlike disposition
predominated in their minds, of which these party strifes were
an evident sign. He gave the Corinthians a rule by which
they might pass a judgment on all teachers of Christianity.
Whoever acknowledged the immovable foundation of the
Christian life, which had been laid by himself, that Jesus was
the Saviour, that men were indebted for salvation to him
alone, and on this foundation proceeded to erect the Christian
doctrine, would thereby prove himself to be a Christian
teacher, and by his faith in Him who alone could impart
salvation, would attain it himself, and lead others to it. But
in the structure of doctrine which was raised on this founda
tion, the divine might more or less be mixed with the human,
and so far be deteriorated. The complete purifying process,
the separation of the divine and the human, would be left to
the last judgment. Many a one who had attached too great
value to the human, would see the work destroyed which ho
had constructed, though the foundation on which it rested
would remain for himself and others : such a one would bo
saved after many severe trials, which he must undergo for
purification from the alloy of self; 1 Cor. iii. 11 — 15.' But
from the teachers who adhered to the unchangeable founda
tion of God's kingdom, and built upon it, either with better
or worse materials, Paul distinguishes those of whom he says,
that they destroy the Temple of God itself in believers, and
1 Sines the whole passage which speaks of fire, of the building con
structed of various materials, some fire-proof and others destructible by
fire, and of being saved as from the midst of the fi-e, is composed of
images, and is figurative throughout, — it is very illogical, as Origen has
justly remarked, arbitrarily to detach from the rest, and take in a
literal sen<e, a single trait in the picture as that, of tire. Nor let any
one say that the idea of such a judgment in the historical development
is somewhat unpaulinc. The idea of such a judgment connected with
the publication of the gospjl, and accompanying its operat ous, per
vades the whole New Testament, — by which indeed, a final judgment
of the world, to which this is only preparative, is not excluded.
260 THE CHURCH AT CORINTH.
are guilty of peculiar sacrilege ; against such he denounced
the most awful punishment, " If any man defile the temple of
God, him shall God destroy ;" 1 Cor. iii. 16, 17.
It is worthy of notice, that where Paul treats of eating meat
offered to idols, he does not, in order to impress the Gentile
Christians with their obligations to abstain from all such food,
appeal to the decision of the apostolic convention at Jeru
salem, any more than he opposed the authority of that
decision to the Jewish Christians, who wished to compel the
Gentiles to be circumcised. It is one of the characteristics of
his method, that he here rests his argument, not on outward
positive command, a rd/uog, but on the inward law in the
hearts of believers, on what the spirit of the gospel requires.
As in the instance of those who wished to impose the law of
circumcision on Gentile Christians, instead of appealing to an
outward authority, he pointed out the internal contrariety
of their conduct to the peculiar and fundamental princi
ples of the gospel ; so on this point he opposed to the
abuse of Christian freedom, the law of love which was
inseparable from the gospel. In short, it appears that,
though the authority of that decision was held sacred in
Palestine, Acts xxi. 25, yet beyond these limits it seems to
have been little regarded. Since that decision rested on
mutual concessions, it followed that if one of the parties of
the Jewish Christians failed to fulfil the condition — if they
would not acknowledge the uncircumcised as their heathen
brethren, — then, on the other side, the obligation ceased to
operate on the Gentile Christians, who by the observance of
that decision, would have made an approach to the Jewish
Christians. At a later period, after the settlement of the
opposition between these two hostile tendencies could no
longer be accomplished, but a Jewish element gained entrance
into the church itself in an altered form, this decision might
again acquire the strict power of law.
Paul did not dispute the position which the free-thinking
Christians at Corinth were always contending for, that no law
could be laid down about outward things that were in them
selves indifferent ; he did not even exact their deference
to the apostolic decision, by which such food was absolutely
forbidden; but he shows them from the standing-point of the
gospel, that what is in itself lawful, may, under special cir-
THE CHURCH AT CORINTH. 261
cumstances, cease to be so, as far as it contradicts the Jaw of
love, — the obligation of Christians to act on all occasions so
that tho salvation of others may be most promoted, and
the glory of God be subserved. He points out that they
even denied their own Christian freedom, since in another
way they brought themselves into subjection to outward
things, which they ought to have used with freedom in the
spirit of love, according as circumstances might vary. *
In reference to the question proposed to him respecting a
single life, he took a middle course between the two contend
ing parties, those who entirely condemned a single life, and
those who wished to prescribe it for all persons as something
essential to Christian perfection. Though by his own peculiar
character he might be disposed to attach a* higher value to a
single life, (which for his own method of labouring was cer
tainly an important assistance,) than could be ascribed to
it from the Christian standing-point, when viewed only objec
tively ; yet the power of a higher spirit was here more clearly
manifested, by which, though his own subjective inclination
was not denied, in the regulation of his own conduct, yet it
was not allowed to interfere injuriously with his views of
Christian morals, and with his wisdom in the guidance of the
church ; but how could it be otherwise with a man who,
although as a man he retained a strongly marked indi
viduality, was influenced in so extraordinary a degree by tho
Spirit of Christ, of that Saviour for whom he had suffered
the loss of all things? He discerned how injurious a forced
celibacy would be in a church like the Corinthian, and hence
sought to guard against this evil. He represented a single
life for those who were fitted for it by their natural con-
Btitution, as a means of attending with less distraction to the
concerns of the kingdom of God, without being diverted from
them by earthly cares, especially under the great impending
tribulations, until the second coming of Christ ; from which
we must infer what an influence the near approach of that
event had on his own course of conduct. He placed the
essence of Christian perfection not in celibacy, nor in the out-
1 1 Cor. vi. 12. TTO.VTO. IMOI (^O-TIV a\\' UVK ty* ^;ou<r(a<r0TJ<T°M°" &*&
Tii/oy. If everything is lawful for me, yet I must not allow myself to be
governed by external thing3, as if, because I can use them, I must
necessarily use them.
262 THE CHUKCH AT CORINTH.
ward denial of earthly things ; but in that renunciation of the
world which has its seat in the disposition, which would make
the married and the rich, as well as the unmarried and the
poor, ready to sacrifice everything which the exigencies of
the times might demand ; to suffer the loss of all things,
however dear to their hearts, for the sake of the gospel ;
1 Cor. vii. 30.
In speaking of the various relations of life in which men
might be placed at the time of their conversion, Paul lays
down as a rule, that that event should produce no change
in this respect. Christianity did not violently dissolve the
relation in which a man found himself placed by birth,
education, and the leading of divine Providence, but taught
him to act in them from a new point of view, and with a new
disposition. It effected no abrupt revolutions, but gradually,
by the power of the Spirit working from within, made all
things new. The apostle applies this especially to the case of
slaves, which it was more needful to consider, because from
the beginning that gospel which was preached to the poor
found much acceptance among this class, and the knowledge
imparted to them by Christianity of the common dignity
and rights of all men, might easily have excited them to
throw off their earthly yoke. Likewise in this view, Chris
tianity, in order not to mingle worldly and spiritual things
together, and not to miss its main object, the salvation of the
soul, did not presume to effect by force a sudden revolution
in their condition, but operated only on the mind and dis
position. To slaves the gospel presented a higher life, which
exalted them above the restraints of their earthly relation ;
and though masters were not required by the apostles to give
their slaves freedom, since it was foreign to their ministry to
interfere with the arrangement of civil relations, yet Chris
tianity imparted to masters such a knowledge of their duties to
their slaves, arid such dispositions towards them, and taught
them to recognise as brethren the Christians among their
slaves, in such a manner as to make their relation to them
quite a different thing.
Paul, therefore, when he touches on this relation, tells the
slave, that though by the arrangement of Providence he was
debarred from th.3 enjoyment of outward freedom, he should
not be troubled, but rejoice that the Lord had bestowed upon
THE CHURCH AT CORINTH. 263
him true inward freedom. But while he considers the latter
as the only true freedom, in the possession of which man may
be free under all outward restraints, and apart from which no
true freedom can exist, he is very far from overlooking the
subordinate worth of civil freedom, for he says to the slave,
to whom he had announced the true, the spiritual freedom,
" but if thou mayst be free, use it rather," 1 Cor. vii. 21 ;l
which implies that the apostle viewed the state of freedom as
more corresponding to the Christian calling, and that Chris
tianity, when it so far gained the ascendency as to form
anew the social relations of mankind, would bring about this
change of state, which he declares to be an object of preference."'
1 The later ascetic spirit forms a striking- contrast on this point to the
spirit of primitive Christianity. Although, iu a grammatical view, it is
most natural to supply the t\ev6(pos 7eVecr0cu which immediately pre
cedes, or <?\eu0epia, yet the later Fathers have not thus understood it,
because the worth of civil freedom appeared to them not so great,
but they took the apostle's meaning to be exactly opposite, p.u\\ov xPVffai
TTJ 8ov\eia. What De Wette has lately urged against this interpretation,
does riot appear tome convincing. The el Kal (he thinks) is against it;
but it suits very well. The apostle says, If called, being a slave, to
Christianity, thou shouldst be content. Christian freedom will not bo
injured by slavery— but yet, if thou canst be free (as a still additional
good, which if thou dost not attain, be satisfied without it ; but which,
if offered to thee, is not to be despised) therefore make use of this
opportunity of becoming free, rather than by neglecting it to remain a
slave. The connexion with v. 22, is not against it, if we recollect, that
the clause beginning with a\\a is only a secondary or qualifying asser
tion, which certainly does not belong to the leading thought, a mode of
construction similar to what we find elsewhere in Paul's writings.
2 To this also the words in v. 23 may relate. " Ye are bought with
a price (ye are made free from the dominion of Satan and sin), become
not the slaves of men." Thus it would be understood by many.
Christians ought not voluntarily, merely to escape from some earthly
trouble, to put themselves in a condition which is not suited to their
Christian calling. But since the apostle previously, when speaking of
such relations as could only concern individuals in the church, used the
singular, but now changed his style to the plural, it is hence probable,
that he is speaking of a relation of a general kind, that is, giving an
exhortation, which would apply to all the Corinthians,— an exhor
tation, indeed, which is not so closely connected with what is said
in v. 22, but which he might easily have been led to make from the
idea of a 5ov\os Xpurrov, so familiar and interesting to his mind,
an idea that would equally apply to both bond and free ; " Kefuse not
this true freedom which belongs to you as the bondsmen of Christ, do
not become by a spiritual dependence the slaves of men, from being
the bondsmen of Christ ; "—an exhortation which was adapted in many
264 THE CHURCH AT CORINTH.
The Corinthian church had probably requested that
Apollos might visit them again, and Paul acknowledged him
as a faithful teacher, who had built on the foundation of the
faith which he had laid, who had watered the field that he
had planted. He was far from opposing this request ; he
even requested Apollos to comply with it, but Apollos was
resolved not to visit Corinth immediately. The importance
attached to his person, and the efforts that had been made to-
place him at the head of a party, perhaps led him to this
determination.
Paul wrote our first Epistle to the Corinthians about the
time of the Jewish Passover, as appears from the allusion in
v. 7. He had then the intention of staying at Ephesus till
Pentecost ; he informed them that many opportunities
offered for publishing the gospel, but that he had also many
enemies -to contend with. He spoke of his being in daily
peril of losing his life ; 1 Cor. xv. 30. l
respects to the condition of the Corinthian church ; and this warning:
against a servitude totally incompatible with being a servant (or bonds
man) of Christ, (which could not be asserted of a state of outward ser
vitude, or slavery, simply as such,) this warning would be a very suitable
conclusion to the whole train of thought on inward and outward free
dom. It was needless for him to notice the case of a person selling
himself for a slave, since it was one that could hardly occur among-
Christians. Verse 24 is rather for than against this interpretation ; for
since v. 23 does not refer to outward relations, he once more repeats the
injunction respecting them.
1 Schrader infers from the words in 1 Cor. xvi. 8, that Paul could
not have written this epistle at the close of his long residence at
Ephesus, but at the beginning of another short stay there : for other
wise he must have said, ^iri^vSj 5e eV 'EcpeVw en, and could not have
hoped to effect that in a few weeks for the spread of the gospel, and the
counteraction of false teachers, which he could not accomplish even,
after several years. But we do not see why Paul, merely having the
future in his eye, and not reflecting on the past, might not leave out
the en, as similar omissions frequently occur in an epistolary writing ;
and even if Paul in the course of a long time had effected much for the
spread of the gospel, still he could say, since the sphere of his labour*
in Lesser Asia was continually extending, that " a great and effectual
door " was opened for publishing the gospel. But the avTiK^i^voi in
this passage, which relates to the publication of the gospel, are certainly
not false teachers, but open adversaries of Christianity. As the oppor
tunities for making known the gospel were manifold, so also its enemies
were many. This, therefore, does not contradict the preceding longer
evidence of the apostle, but rather confirms it; for the most violent
attacks on the preachers of the gospel, if they did not proceed from the
THE CHURCH AT CORINTH. 265
At the time of his writing this Epistle to Corinth, he had
formed an extensive plan for his future labours. As during
his stay of several years in Achaia and at Ephesus, he had
laid a sufficient foundation for the extension of the Christian
church among the nations who used the Greek language, he
now wished to transfer his ministry to the West ; and as it
was his fundamental principle to make those regions the
scene of his activity where no one had laboured before him —
he wished on that account to visit Rome, the metropolis of the
world, where a church had long since been established, in his
way to Spain,1 and then to commence the publication of the
gospel at the extremity of Western Europe. But before
putting this plan into execution, he wished to obtain a
munificent collection in the churches of the Gentile Christians
for their poor believing brethren at Jerusalem, and to bring
the amount himself to Jerusalem accompanied by some
members of the churches. Already some time before he de
spatched this Epistle to the Corinthians, he had sent Timothy
and some others to Macedonia and Achaia to forward this
collection, and to counterwork the disturbing influences in
the Corinthian church.2 He hoped to receive through him
Jews, would first arise, after by their long-continued labours they had
produced effects which threatened to injure the interests of many whose
gains were derived from idolatrous practices.
' Kom. xv. 24, 28. Dr. Bauer, in his Essay on the Object and Occa
sion of the Epistle to the Romans, in the Tubirujer Zeitsc.hrift fur
Theologie, 1836, part iii. p. 156. has attempted to show that Paul could
not have written these word.?. He thinks that he discovers in them
the marks of another hand, of which, in my opinion, no trace whatever
can be found, — all appears wholly Pauline. It might indeed seem
strange, that the apostle of the Gentiles had not yet visited the metro
polis of the Gentile world. Accordingly, he gives an account of the
causes which had hitherto prevented him, and expresses his earnest
desire to become personally acquainted with the church of the metro
polis. Since it was most important, first of all, to lay a foundation
everywhere for the publication of the gospel, on which the super
structure might afterwards be easily raised, so it was his maxim — the
same which he expresses in 2 Cor. x. 16, and which we see him always
acting upon — to labour only in those regions where no one before had
published the gospel. But among the Gentiles at Rome a church had
been long founded, and hence he could not be justified on his own prin
ciples in leaving a field of labour in which there was still so much to be
done, in order to visit a church that had been long established, and was
in a state of progressive development. The difficulties which Bauer
finds in this passage are only created by a false interpretation.
2 1 Cor. iv. 17. The manner in which Paul mentions Timothy both
266 THE CHUKCH AT CORINTH.
an account of the impression which his epistle had made.
But he found himself deceived in his expectations, for
Timothy was probably prevented from travelling as far as
Corinth, and came back to Ephesus without bringing the
information which the apostle expected.1 The apostle, ani
mated by a tender paternal anxiety for the church, became
tmeasy respecting the effect produced by his epistle ; he,
therefore, sent Titus to Corinth for the purpose of obtaining
information, and that he might personally operate on the
church in accordance with the impression made by the epistle.
As Paul had resolved, on sending away Titus, to leave
Ephesus soon, he agreed with him to meet at Troas, where he
designed to make a longer stay in order to found a church,
2 Cor. ii. 12, and perhaps intended to shape his future course
by the information which he would there receive from Titus.
But here the question arises, Could Paul have sent Titus to
Corinth without an epistle ? And if we find in his second
Epistle to the Corinthians numerous allusions to an epistle
which he simply designates as the epistle, shall we not most
naturally conclude that it means an. epistle sent by Titus ?
And so much the more, if these allusions contain many things
that do not tally with the First Epistle to the Corinthians. 2
here and in xvi. 10, plainly shows that he was not the bearer of this
epistle, and the latter passage "makes it not improbable that Paul
expected he would arrive at Corinth after his epistle, which would
naturally happen though Timothy departed first, because he was
detained a considerable time in Macedonia. Perhaps the messengers
from the Corinthian church were already come to Ephesus when
Timothy was going away, and as Paul wished to give them a copious
reply, on that account he sent no epistle by Timothy.
1 It favours the supposition that Timothy did not come as far as
Corinth, that, in Acts xix. 22, only Macedonia is mentioned as the
object of his mission. And if he came to Corinth as Paul's delegate, he
would have mentioned him, as Rlickert justly remarks, in connexion
with others who were sent by him ; for though we are not justified that
Paul here mentioned by name all who were sent by him to Corinth, yet
the object for which he named them, in order to appeal to the fact that
they had acted with the same disposition as himself, and were as little
burdensome to the Corinthian c-hurch, required the mention of a man
like Timothy so closely connected with him, if he had stayed at Corinth
as his delegate. This therefore is opposed to Bleek's view, which we
shall afterwards mention, according to which Timothy really came to
Corinth, and must have been the bearer of bad news from thence.
2 Bleek has endeavoured to prove all this in his valuable essay
already mentioned, in the Studien und Kritiken, 1830, part iii. But
THE CHURCH AT CORINTH. 267
We ask then, in this second epistle are such things really
found which lead us to suppose another document composed
in a different tone from the first epistle now extant ? Let us
examine this more closely. Paul says at the beginning
of the second chapter that he had altered his former plan of
travelling immediately from Ephesus to Corinth, and had
resolved to go first to Macedonia, in order that he might not
be obliged to produce a painful impression among them, if he
came to them while the evils which he censured in his first
epistle were still in existence. On this account, he wished,
instead of coming immediately from Ephesus to Corinth,
rather to communicate by letter what was painful to them,
(which may very well refer to the reprehensions contained in
the first epistle,) and to await its operation in producing
repentance, before he came to them in person. He says
of the epistle in question, that he had written it in great
anguish of heart and with many tears, for his object had been
not to give them pain, but to evince his love for them. Does
not that suit such passages as 1 Cor. iv. 8 — 19 ; vi. 7 ; x. ?
Does not that which he here says of his disposition correctly
describe that state of mind, in which the news respecting the
dangerous condition of the Corinthian church must have
placed him 1 It can well be referred to that individual who
lived in unlawful intercourse with his step-mother, against
whose continuance in church-fellowship he had so strongly
expressed himself, when he says of such a one that he troubled
not only himself as the founder of the church, but in a certain
degree the whole church. That epistle was indeed suited to
caU forth in the Corinthians the consciousness of their corrupt
state, that sorrow which leads to salvation, as Paul says
of that epistle, 2 Cor. vii. 9, &c. But chiefly we might
be induced, by verse 12 of the same chapter, to suppose
a reference to what was said by Paul in an epistle now lost :
" He bad written such a letter to them, not on his account
this is connected with the assumption that Timothy really came to
Corinth, and the bad news which lie brought influenced Paul to send
Titus thither. If we only assume that Paul was informed that a part
of the church had shown themselves more haughty after the receipt of
that first epistle, it can be explained how he was induced to send a
severer epistle by Titus. But we have noticed above, what opposes the
supposition that Timothy at that time really extended his. journey as
far as Corinth
268 THE CHURCH AT CORINTH.
who had done the wrong, nor on his account against whom it
was done, but from a regard to all, that his sincere zeal
for their best welfare might be manifest."1 If we refer the
words to our first epistle, it is difficult to determine who the
person can be against whom the wrong was committed. All
will be clear, if we refer it to Paul himself, that he intended
delicately to point out himself as the injured party ; and that
he had been induced thus to write, not from a selfish interest,
but from a sincere zeal for their best welfare. It also appears
to be implied that the epistle in question related principally if
not entirely to this one case. But the affair of the incestuous
person occupies only a very small space in the first epistle.
All this rather favours the supposition that there was another
epistle of Paul, not now extant, which related exclusively
or principally to the conduct of one individual who had con
ducted himself towards the apostle with great insolence,
either the same immoral person on whom Paul passes his
judgment in the first epistle, or another. Yet this conjecture
does not seem to rest on a very solid foundation, for in these
words we find no further mark which can lead us to suppose
1 It will be proper here to determine the correct reading. If we
adopt the reading received by Lachmann, T^V trirovS^v v/j.£v r^v virtp
T](j.<av irpbs v/j.as, it will favour that interpretation, according to which
there must be a reference to a personal wrong directed against the
apostle. The connexion may be traced in this manner : If I have
written to you in this manner (using such strong language), it is not on
account of him who has committed the wrong, nor on his account who
has suffered the wrong (Paul himself who had been personally injured
by the insolence of that man), but that your zeal for me might be
made known by you before God (i. e. in an upright manner, so that the
disposi'tion in which you act, may prove itself in the sight of God,
as that of true love). This would be the contrast : I did it not,
to avenge my apostolic authority, and to punish the person who
impugned it; but on this account, to give you an opportunity to
manifest your zeal for me, as it has now been actually shown. But still
we must agree with Buckert that the irpbs v/j.us according to this read
ing seems rather superfluous. This irpbs v,uas certainly intimates, that
it was Paul's wish to speak of his zeal for the welfare of the church,
which would be shown in his conduct towards it ; also in the words
fv&iriov TOV 6eov, we find such an indication that Paul was speaking of
his own disposition as showing itself to be upright before God. The
correctness of the common reading is also established by comparing it
with 2 Cor. ii. 4, for the words TTJV cnrovtyv r^uv T^V fartp v^uv, cor
respond to the words Trjv aydirtiv, &c. But it may be easily explained
how looking back to vii. 11 and 7, would give rise to a various
reading.
THE CHURCH AT CORINTH. 2f)9
a personal reference to the apostle. He who was fond of con
trasts and accustomed to mark them strongly, would on this
occasion have marked very strongly the contrast between his
personal interest, and the interest of the church, if he had
wished to express anything of the kind. On the other hand,
we may fairly understand by the person against whom the
wrong was committed, the father, whom his son by his
incestuous conduct had so grievously injured ; whether the
father was already dead, or still living, which on this supposi
tion would be more probable. l Perhaps the complaints of
the father had been the occasion of making known the whole
affair to the apostle.2 The meaning of the passage would
then be, that they ought not to believe that a reference to any
individual whatever, that resentment against any person, or
attachment to any one, had moved him thus to write, but
that he had been actuated chiefly by a concern for the welfare
of the church. Nor is it necessary to assume, that the whole
of the epistle to which he here alludes, was occupied with this
one affair, if only his readers can infer from the connexion
that he here wishes to speak of this one object (among several
others) of the epistle.
The manner also in which Paul speaks of the sending
away of Titus, contains no such marks which justify the sup
position that this step was occasioned by the unfavourable
account brought by Timothy of the state of the Corinthian
church; for he declares in 2 Cor. vii. 14, that on his leaving
he said many things to him in the praise of that Church, and
hence had raised good expectations respecting it in his mind. 3
1 It is singular, thut in the first epistle, no mention is made of the
father of the offender.
2 All difficulties would vanish, if with Daniel Heinsius, we under
stand the words TOV dSi/ajfleVros as neuter = rov a/j.apTT)6tvTos, which
the New Testament use of dSi/mi/ would allow. The transition from
the masculine to the neuter may surprise us less, since the neuter
follows immediately after. The aSucrjOfv would then correspond to the
Trpay/j-a before mentioned. And though it may appear objectionable
that Paul should so express himself as if such a sin was a thing of
minor importance, yet this is not an idea conveyed by the words; but
lie wishes only to express very strongly in an antithetical form, that his
anxiety for the welfare of the whole church, for the preservation of its
purity, had induced him so to write. But it suits the contrast still
better, if all personal references were kept out of sight.
3 The words in 2 Cor., vii. 14, I cannot understand, according to the
mutual relation of the clauses, otherwise than thus : By what I have
270 THE CHUECH AT CORINTH.
Still the objection may be urged, Titus must at all events, as
a messenger from Paul, have brought with him an epistle to
Corinth; and if Paul quotes a letter without marking it
more precisely, we can understand by it no other than the
last, and therefore the one brought by Titus. But if he sent
Titus after Timothy's return, and soon after he had despatched
his first Epistle to the Corinthian church, we may more
readily presume that he would not think it necessary to send
a long epistle at the same time, but perhaps give him only a
few lines in which he intimated that Titus was to supply the
place of Timothy, who was not able to come to them himself. l
said to Titus in your praise, I have not been put to shame; hut as I
have spoken to you all according to truth, so also this has been proved
to be true.
1 A difficulty is here presented, from the manner in which Paul
mentions the sending Titus in the Second Epistle to the Corinthians.
2 Cor. viii. 6, compared with v. 36, and ix. '6; xii. 18. Billroth and
Eiickert (who does not however assent to all the reasons alleged by the
former) have hence concluded, that the sending of Titus was by no
means after the despatch of that first epistle, but took place long before,
and that the arrangement of the collection was the object of his visit.
But Titus would be still at Corinth when that letter arrived, and hence
could communicate to Paul respecting the effect it produced. Perhaps
Titus was the bearer of the first lost epistle to the Corinthian church.
Hence it may be explained, why Paul could consider his second epistle
(the first now extant) as his last written epistle, and quote it without
any further designation. But if this had been the case, we must neces
sarily look for an express mention of Titus in our first epistle ; and
since none such occurs, we must either assume that the sending of
Titus mentioned in the second epistle, is the same as that which we
have spoken of in the text, or if we consider it as different, it occurred
much earlier, so that Titus, when Paul wrote his first Epistle to the
Corinthians, must have been a long while returned to them. And for
this latter assumption, it may be urged, that at that first sending a
companion of Titus is mentioned ; and, on the other hand, when Paul
mentions his meeting with Titus in Macedonia, no one else appears;
not that this is a decisive proof, because Titus alone might be mentioned
as being the principal person. But, on the contrary, when Paul states
that he boasted of the Corinthian church to Titus, it seems implied (if
not absolutely necessary) that this church was not personally known to
him. If we are disposed to assume, that this mission of Titus was the
same as that mentioned in the first epistle, the chronological order of
events would not oppose this supposition. But first, there is the
question, whether Paul reckoned the year according to the Koman,
Greek, or Jewish Calendar; in the last case, he might mention the
sending of Titus as having taken place in the preceding year, if it was
before Easter ; in the second, if it was after Easter, and if he wrote this
epistle in autumn. But it is not at all necessary to assume that the
THE TUMULT AT EPIIESUS. 271
But after the sending of Titus, a violent popular tumult
arose at Ephesus against the apostle, which was nevertheless
an evidence of the great success of his ministry in Lesser
Asia. Small models in gold and silver of the famed templo
of Artemis were used to be made,1 which being sent to distant
parts as an object of devotion, brought great gain to the city.
A man named Demetrius, who had a large manufactory of
such models, and a great number of workmen, began to fear,
since the gospel had spread with such success in Lesser Asia,
and faith in Artemis had so far declined2 as to lessen the salo
of his wares in this region, that the gains of his trade would
soon be lost. He assembled his numerous workmen, and
easily inflamed their anger against the enemies of their gods,
who threatened to deprive the great Artemis of her honour,
and them of their gain. A great tumult arose, they all
hastened to the public place where they were wont to assem
ble, and many cried out, some one thing, some another,
without knowing why they were come together. As the
Jews here lived in the midst of a numerous Greek population
who viewed them with constant aversion, any special occasion
easily roused their slumbering prejudices into open violence,
and they had then much to sufl'er : they feared therefore, that
the anger of the people against the enemies of their gods —
especially as many did not know who these enemies were
exactly — would be turned upon themselves; and one of their
number, Alexander by name, came forward, in order to shift
the blame from themselves upon the Christians; but the
sending away of Titus was in the preceding year ; for it might be the
case taut the Corinthian church had begun the collection, before Titus
had proposed it to them. Nor ought it to excite our surprise, that
Paul mentions only one object for which he sent Titus, the arrangement
of the collection ; for he might be sent for this purpose, and at the same
time, to obtain information for Paul respecting the state of the Corin
thian church, and the effect produced by his epistle. But as he was
writing respecting the collection, he had no occasion to advert to
another topic.
1 The words of Paul, Acts xx. 19, perhaps intimate that this popular
disturbance proceeded from the machinations of the Jews, though it
afterwards threatened to be dangerous to the Jews themselves.
2 It is possible, that the successful ministry of Paul alre?dy threatened
the destruction of idolatry, though after the first successful propagation
of the gospel, a pause in its progress intervened, similar to what has
often occurred. Compare Pliny's account of the decline of heathenism,
in my Church History, vol. i. p. 140.
272 THE TUMULT AT EPHESUS.
appearance of such a person whom they ranked among these
enemies, aroused the heathen to still greater fury, and the
clamour became more violent. But on this occasion only
the populace appear to have been hostile to the teachers of
Christianity ; the manner in which Paul had lived and acted
during his long residence in the city must have operated
advantageously on the public authorities of the city. Some
even of the magistrates who were placed this year at the head
of regulating all the sacra in Lesser Asia,1 and presided over
the public games, showed their sympathy for him, for when
he was on the point of exposing himself to the excited crowd,
they besought him not to incur this danger. And the
chamberlain of the city at last succeeded in calming the minds
of the people by his representations — by calling on them to
give an account of the object of their meeting — of which the
majority were totally ignorant — and by reminding them of
the serious responsibility they incurred for their turbulent
and illegal behaviour.
It is very doubtful whether Paul was determined by this
disturbance, which seems to have been quite transitoiy, to
leave Ephesus earlier than he had intended according to his
original plan. When he wrote his first letter to the Corin
thians, he spoke to them of the dangers which daily threatened
him, and yet these had no influence in determining the length
of his sojourn in this city. Perhaps we may find several
usions to this naw disfc urbancs.2 A comparison of the
: each of the cities which formed the Kotvov TTJS 'Acrias chose
a delegate yearly for this college of 'Acriapxcu. See Aristid. Orat. Sacr.
iv. ed. Dindorf. vol. i. p. 531 ; and probably the president of this
college would be called apxtepeus, dtrtapxr/s ; his name was employed in
marking the date of public events ; see the Letter of the Church
at Smyrna, on the martyrdom of Polycarp ; and Ezechiel Spanheim, de
PrcMtantia et Usu Numismatum, ed. secunda, p. 691.
2 He says, 1 Cor. xv. 31, that he was daily exposed to death, which
may lead us to conclude, that when Paul had reached the end of this
epistle, (which was probably not written all at once,) this disturbance
had taken place. Thus we may take the words in v. 32, KUTO, av6pu>-
TTIVQV XoyiafJ^v Qrjotuv eyev6/j.i]V fiopa — aAXa 7rapa5o£cos ea<a6t\v, with
Theodoret, in a literal sense, namely, that it was demanded by the raging
populace, as afterwards was often the case in the persecutions of the
Christiana, that the enemy of the gods should be condemned ad bestiast
ad leonem. But though such a cry might be raised by the infuriated
multitude, it is very difficult to suppose, considering the existing cir
cumstances, that their desire would be granted, and Paul therefore
THE TUMULT AT EPHESUS. 273
First and Second Epistles to the Corinthians with one another,
may indeed favour the belief, that Paul wrote the latter after
this event, since he here writes as one who had been rescued
from impending death.1 But it may indeed be supposed,
could never say, that, as far as he could expect according to human
judgment, he would have been a prey to the wild beasts without the
wonderful help of God. Also this interpretation of the words Kara
&v6po)irot>, is not the easiest and most favoured by the connexion. I
rather find in these words, according to the connexion, the contrast
to the Christian hope, the designation of the standing-point of men ia
general who are destitute of this hope. By the wild beasts must there
fore be understood, savage infuriated men with \vhom Paul had to con
tend. From Rom. xvi. 4, where it is said that Priscilla and Aquila
had ventured their lives for him, as well as from what Paul says in
Acts xx. 19, we may gather that he was exposed to many dangers
at Ephesus, which are not mentioned in the Acts.
1 According to the interpretation proposed by Ruckcrt, these ex
pressions do not refer to persecutions endured by Paul, but to a dan
gerous illness, the effects of which accompanied him to Macedonia, and
were felt by him when he wrote this second Epistle to the Corinthians.
But on comparing all that relates to it, I cannot assent to this view.
As to the passage in 2 Cor. i. 8, it appears to me that these words must
be explained according to v. 5. I grant, indeed, that natural diseases
may be called in a certain sense irad-nfj.ara rov XQUTTCV ; but, in accord
ance with the Pauline phraseology, we should certainly apply them pri
marily to suffering for the cause of the kingdom of God, in which the
believer follows Christ. Riickert thinks that if Paul had intended to
signify the persecution that had been excited at Ephesus, he would have
named the city itself, as in the first epistle. But I do not see why he
should not choose the general designation of the region of which
Ephesus was the metropolis ; and, it is possible, that the exasperation
of the heathens against him spread from Ephesus to other parts of
Lesser Asia which he visited. Why then might he not say, that the
persecutions exceeded the measure of his human strength, that he was
almost, overcome, and despaired of his life I In 2 Cor. iv. 9 and 11, he
distinctly notices persecutions by which he was in continual danger or
death, with \vhich 1 Cor. xv. 30—31 agrees ; from these passages we
may conclude that he was exposed to more dangers than arc recorded in
the Acts. And in this way other passages must be explained. The
mention of the earthen vessels is not against this view, for the conflicts
which Paul had to sustain always served to awaken in his mind a more
vivid consciousness, that he carried about the divine treasure in an
earthen broken vessel, that this shattered receptacle would soon be
entirely destroyed by such assaults unless strengthened and rescued
by Almighty power. He might well say in v. 10, that he always bore
about in his body the vfKpcaa-is rov'lrjfrou, because he was always exposed
to death for the cause of Christ (v. 11), and bearing the marks of these
sufferings in his body, he thus carried with him an image of the suffer
ing Sav iour in his own person. What he says in v. 9, and in the
VOL. L T
274 PAULS JOURNEY TO MACEDONIA.
that when he found himself in the midst of those dangers,
the higher concerns of which he treated in the First Epistle
to the Corinthians, so occupied him, that he forgot everything
personal — but that when he had left Ephesus, the recollec
tions of the special leadings of Providence, which had rescued
him from such dangers, filled him with overflowing gratitude
which he could not suppress.
After Paul had laboured at Troas in preaching the gospel,
and had waited in vain for Titus, whom he expected on his
return from Corinth, he left that place with troubled feelings
and went to meet him in Macedonia. Among the Macedonian
churches he met with gratifying proofs of the advance of the
Christian life, to which their conflicts with the world had
contributed. No persecutions of Christianity as a religio
illicita had as yet been commenced by the authorities of the
state. But at all events, the Christians, by their withdrawing
from the heathen worship and all that was connected with it,
must have unfavourably impressed the heathen among whom
they lived, and excited the hatred of the fanatical populace who
were instigated by the Jews. Even if no legal charge could
be brought against the believers as apostates from the religion
of the state, still without this instrument, zealous heathens,
who formed so large a majority, possessed sufficient means to
oppress or injure in their worldly prospects a class of persons so
far below themselves, in numbers, respectability, and political
influence. It may illustrate this, if we only think of what
converts to Christianity in the East Indies have had to endure
^ (though under a Christian government), from their heathen
whole context, marks the disposition of one who had reason to consider
the duration of his life as very uncertain, whether he met with a natural or
violent death. 2 Cor. vi. 9 is to be explained according to iv. 9 and 11.
2 Cor. vii. 5 shows that even in Macedonia he had no respite from his
Bufferings, but was overwhelmed with fresh trials. Here we find
no trace of illness. The word <rap£ by no means justifies us in under
standing the passage of illness ; it denotes everything which could
affect the outer man, while within the highest peace might be enjoyed.
The passage in 2 Cor. xii. 7 is too obscure to draw any conclusion from
it with certainty ; and even if here a chronic disorder were intended, it
would not be clear that what was said before had any reference to it.
AVe do not deny that Paul had to combat with much bodily weakness ;
— we do not deny that the tribulation he endured must have impaired
his bodily strength ; but it does not follow that the passages above
ouoted have such a reference
THE CHURCH AT CORINTH. 275
relatives and connexions ! Rut the Macedonian Christians
cheerfully endured everything for the cause of the gospel, and,
however much their means of subsistence had been injured,
they were ready to take an active part in the collection made
by Paul in the church at Jerusalem, even " beyond their
power ;" 2 Cor. viii. In Macedonia, the apostle had also the
satisfaction of meeting with Titus, and of learning from him
that his epistle had produced a salutary effect, if not on the
whole, yet on the greater part of the Corinthian church. The
disapprobation of the larger and better part had been ex
pressed against the incestuous person, and the voice of this
majority, which as such must have been decisive in the
assemblies of the church, had either actually expelled him
from church-communion, according to the judgment ex
pressed by Paul, or the actual execution of the sentence had
been put off in the event of his not receiving forgiveness from
the apostle. When the resolution of the majority was an
nounced to the offender with expressions of severe reprehen
sion, he expressed the greatest sorrow and penitence. On
this account, the majority, who always acknowledged the
apostolic authority of Paul, interceded on his behalf that a
milder course might be adopted, and Paul assented, in order
that the penitent might not be plunged in despair, and thus
a greater calamity ensue.1 The majority showed the greatest
1 In the words 2 Cor. ii. 5—10, I cannot find anything different
from what I have stated in the text. Nor do they support Kuckert's
assertion, that the majority of the church, though they expressed their
disapprobation of the offender, were not disposed to proceed against
him as severely as Paul desired, and that the apostle only yielded to
their wishes from prudential motives, in order to maintain his autho
rity, and to preserve the appearance of directing their decisions. Paul
says, 2 Cor. ii. 6, " Sufficient to such a man is this punishment which
was inflicted of many." From this we cannot infer that it differed from
the sentence passed by the upostle himself. This, said he— only re
ferring to what had taken place, and in connexion with what followed
— is indeed not unanimous, but yet the punishment awarded to him by
the voice of the majority. It is sufficient — may mean, enough has been
done that this sentence of the majority has been expressed, and that he
has been brought to contrition, so that now a milder course may be
adopted, and he may be received again into church-communion. Or, it
is sufficient that the majority have adopted this resolution. But, since
he is now penitent, it need not be carried into effect. The pain which
he has already suffered is enough. Hence, instead of continuing to act
vrith that strictness, and carrying into effect that resolution of the
376 THE CHURCH AT CORINTH.
regard for the apostle's authority ; they lamented having
occasioned him so much trouble, and assured him how earnestly
they longed to see him soon among them. But Paul's op
ponents among the Judaizers were not humbled, but, on the
contrary, were only embittered against him by his reprimand
and the submission paid to him by the rest of the church,
and used every means in their power to make the church sus
picious of him. They said, that he was powerful only in his
letters, but that " his bodily presence was weak, and his speech
contemptible ;" 2 Cor. x. 10. He threatened more than he
could perform, and hence was very far from formidable. He
was conscious of his weakness, and, therefore, was always
threatening to come, but never came. In his first epistle,
which has not come down to us, he probably threatened the
contumacious, that he would soon come to Corinth, and if
what was amiss were not rectified, he would exert the utmost
prerogative of his office. In that last epistle, or by verbal
communications, he had announced to them that as soon as
he had left Ephesus, he would come immediately to them, as
he wished, after a transient sojourn at Corinth, to travel into
Macedonia, and return again to them in order to remain with
them till his intended departure to Jerusalem. But as he
now remained longer in Ephesus, as he had altered the plan,
of his journey, and had an-nounced to the Corinthians that he
would first go into Macedonia and then come to them ; l s'
he took advantage of this arrangement to excuse a sense of
his weakness, of vacillation, and of ambiguity in his ex
pressions. And thus uncertain and vacillating — they con
cluded, he would be as a teacher. Hence his self-contradic
tory conduct in reference to the observance of the Mosaic
Law by the Jews and Gentiles. They endeavoured to set in
a false light that Christian prudence which always distinguished
church, they might announce forgiveness to him, for (v. 9) Paul had
attained his object; they had, by virtue of that resolution of the majo
rity, given him the proof he required of their obedience. He required
nothing more (v. 10), as they had assented to his severe sentence; so
now he was ready to excuse them, as he had attained the object he had
at heart, the welfare of the church. Paul also expressly commends
(vii. 11) the indignation they had manifested in this affair, the e/cSf/tTjo-ir
they had felt, thus acquitting themselves of all participation in the
•wickedness.
1 We therefore need not assume a lost epistle containing this altered
plan of the journey.
THE CHURCH AT CORINTH. 277
Paul, but which was united in him with perfect simplicity of
intention, as if he had employed a variety of artifices to de
ceive men. Also all that was amiss which he had denounced
in his letters, had not yet been put away by that part of the
church which adhered to the apostle. Such being the state
of the Corinthian church, Paul thought it best — in order
that his own visit to Corinth might be disturbed by no un
pleasant occurrences, and that his intercourse with the Corin
thians might be one of joy and love — to write once more to
them, in order to prepare the way for his personal ministry
among them. He sent Titus with two other able persons
in the service of the church, as bearers of this epistle to
Corinth.1
In reference to that marked suspicion of his conduct and
character, Paul appeals in this epistle to the testimony of his
own conscience, that in his intercourse with men in general,
and especially with the Corinthians, he had been guided not
by worldly prudence, but by the Spirit of God ; he contrasts
one with the other, since he considered simplicity and upright
ness of intention as the essential mark of the agency of the
Divine Spirit. His epistle also testifies this ; as he wrote, so
he thought ; - he had nothing in his mind different from his
avowed intentions. He states the reasons of the alteration in
the plan of his journey, and draws the conclusion, that no
1 One of these (2 Cor. viii. 18) was chosen from the Macedonian
churches, that he might in their name convey the collection to Jeru
salem, and he is distinguished as one, whose " praise was in all the
churches," for his activity in publishing the gospel. We may indeed
suppose, that Luke is the person intended, and must then assume, that
Paul was left behind at Philippi, where Luke afterwards joined him ;
but that the latter, after his return from Corinth, again stayed at
Philippi, and on the departure of Paul to Jerusalem, intended to join
him there. It is indeed remarkable that Luke, who generally gives a
fuller narrative when lie was an eye-witness, touches so slightly on this
in the Acts. But his brevity may be explained from the fact of his
being more copious only in relating the personal ministry of Paul.
2 2 Cor. i. 12, 13. The grounds on which De Wette objects to this
interpretation, are not obvious to me. " But what suspicion of dupli
city might the confident assertions in v. 12 awaken." This verse could
indeed awaken no such suspicion, but rather contradicts that suspicion
which Paul's enemies sought to excite ; v. 13 serves to corroborate what
he had said in v. 12. Paul makes the appeal, that in his epistle, as
well as in his whole ministry, nothing could be found of a aofyla. (rapKiKij
which his adversaries wished to find in those words: he maintains, that
all his words, not less than his actions, bore the impress of OTTAOTTJS.
278 PAUL'S JOURNEY TO ACHAIA.
inconsistency can be found in what he had said on this matter.
And he could call God to witness, that no inconsistency could
be found in his manner of publishing the gospel, that he had
always preached one unchangeable doctrine of Christ, and the
promises which they received would be certainly fulfilled
through Christ.1 God himself had given them as well as him
the certain pledge of this, by the common witness of the
Holy Spirit in their hearts ; (2 Cor. i. 16—22.)
The duty of vindicating his apostolic character against the
accusations of his opponents, forced him to speak much of
himself. The palpably evident object of his doing this, and
the distinction which he was always careful to make between
the divine power connected with his apostolic functions, and
the person of a feeble mortal, between the " man in Christ "
and the weak Paul,2 sufficiently acquitted him of the charge of •
self-conceit and vain-glory. To common men, who would
measure everything by the same measure, many things might
seem strange in Paul's manner of speaking of himself and his
ministry, so that they were ready to accuse him of extrava
gance, of a self-exaltation bordering on insanity. But what
impelled him to speak in such strong terms, was not personal
feeling, but the inspired consciousness of the divine power
attached to the gospel and to his apostolic calling, which
would triumph over all opposition. Thus the fact of his " not
being able to do anything of himself" redounded in his view
to the glory of God.
Paul spent the rest of the summer and autumn in Mace
donia ; he probably extended his labours to the neighbouring
country of Illyria,3 and then removed to Achaia, where he
spent the winter.
1 Therefore independently of the law of which his adversaries pre
scribed the observance.
2 To this the passage in 2 Cor. v. 13 refers. "For whether we be
beside ourselves, (the inspiration with which the apostle spake of the
divine objects of his calling:, of what the power of God effected through
his apostolic office — but which his adversaries treated as empty boasting,
and ascribed to an atypovvvri or fj.avia) it is to the glory of God ; or
whether we be sober (when the apostle speaks of himself as a weak
mortal, puts himself on a level with the Corinthians, and makes no use
of its apostolic power and its privileges) it is for your welfare."
3 In 2 Cor. x. 14—16, Paul seems to mark Achaia as the extreme
limit of his labours in preaching the gospel; (this indeed does not
follow from the &x§1 Ka* vp.tav, since &XP1 ia itself does not denote
THE CHURCH AT ROME. 279
Since he was now resolved, after his return from the journey
to Jerusalem, which he proposed undertaking at the beginning
of the spring, to change the scene of his labours to the West,
and to visit the metropolis of the Roman empire for the first
time, he must have been gratified to form a connexion pre
viously with the church in that city. The journey of Phoebe,
the deaconness of the church at Cenchrsea, who had been in
duced by various circumstances to visit Home, gave him the
best opportunity for this purpose, while, at the same time, ho
recommended her to the care of the Roman church.1
a fixed or exclusive limit, see Rom. v. 13, though Paul sometimes uses
the word in this latter meaning, Gal. iii. 19; iv. 2; yet it appears to
proceed from the comparison of the three verses in connexion) ; on the
other in Rom. xv. 19, Illyria is thus marked. But it does not follow
from this last passage, that Paul himself had preached the gospel in
Illyria; possibly he only mentioned this as the extreme limit as far as
wtiich he had reached in preaching the gospel.
1 It is here taken for granted, that the 16th chapter belongs with the
whole of the Epistle to the Romans, which in modern times has been
disputed by Schulz in the Studien und Kritiken, vol. ii. p. 609 ; but,
as it appears to me, on insufficient grounds. It may excite surprise that
Paul should salute so many individuals in a church to which he was
personally a stranger, and that we find among them relations and old
friends of the apostle from Palestine, and other parts of the East, Bufc
we must recollect, that Home was always the rendezvous of persons from
all parts of the Roman empire, a fact stated by Athenaeus in the
strongest terms, Deipnosoph. i. 20, TTJI/ 'P&^cuW ir6\iv lirrro/iV rf}r
oiKou/xeVrj?, iv 77 ffvvfielv ia-nv Trauras ras tr6\fis iSpv/ueVas, (such OS Alex
ich Nicomedia and Athens— xal ya '6\a ra torn aOpows
,
andria, Antioch, Nicomedia, and Athens)— xal yap '6\a ra torn
ouTofli (TwyKiffTcu. Paul might easily become personally acquainted at
Ephesus and Corinth with many Christians from Rome, or learn par
ticulars respecting them. Among those whom he salutes were persona
of the family of Narcissus, who was well known to be a freed-man of the
Emperor Claudius. That Aquila and Priscilla were again in Rome, that
a part of the church assembled in their house, and that a number of
years afterwards, as may be inferred from the 2d Epistle to Timothy,
they are to be found at Ephesus,— all this, from what we have before
remarked, is not so surprising. The warning against the Judaixing
teachers, xvi. 17, who published another doctrine than what they had
received (from the disciples of the apostle), agrees perfectly with what
is said in the 14th chapter, and with what we may infer from the epistle
itself, in reference to the state of the Roman church. The passage in
xvi. 19 agrees also with i. 8, and the comparison confirms the belief that
they both belong to the same epistle. Bauer, in his essay before quoted,
has endeavoured to prove the spuriousness of the two last chapters. He
believes that, in the 15th chapter especially, he can trace a later writer
attached to Pauline principles, who thought that, in order to justify
Paul, and to bring about a union between the Jewish and Gentile
280 THE CHURCH AT ROME.
It is not improbable that, at an early period, the seed of
the gospel was brought by Jewish Christians to the Jews at
Eome, as at that time, if we may judge from the salutations
at the end of the epistle, persons who were among the oldest
Christians lived at Rome ; but these certainly did not form
the main body of the church, for the greater part evidently
consisted of Christians of Gentile descent, to whom the gospel
had been published by men of the Pauline school, inde
pendently of the Mosaic Law, to whom Paul, as the apostle of
the Gentles, felt himself called to write, and whom, in conse
quence of the relation, he could address with greater freedom.
Christians, it was necessary to make some additions to the epistle; but
I cannot perceive the validity of the evidence adduced by this acute
critic. Paul was probably prevented when he had finished the 14th
chapter, from continuing the epistle to the close. And when he took
it up again where he left off, and looked back on what he had last
written, he felt himself impelled to add something on the theme of
which he had last treated, the harmony between the Gentile and Jewish
Christians in the Roman church. His object was, on the one hand, to
check the free-thinking Gentile Christian from self-exaltation in relation
to their weaker Jewish brethren in the faith ; and on the other hand, to
remind the Jewish Christians that the admission of the Gentiles into
the kingdom of God was no infringement of the rights of the Jewish
people, and that it was in unison with the predictions of the Old Testa
ment. He exhorts them, xv. 7, to receive one another mutually as
members of the same kingdom of God, though with a special reference
to the Gentile Christians, to whom Paul at the beginning of the chapter
particularly addressed himself, if we follow the best accredited reading,
V/J.KS. He then states the reasons why the Gentiles had especial cause
to praise God, to be thankful and humble, since God had in so unex
pected a manner brought them to a participation of his kingdom, who
previously knew nothing of it, and who had no hopes of this kind, (a
train of thought which he introduces elsewhere, Ephes. ii. 12, and in
several other passages). He shows that God, by the sending of Christ
to the Jews, manifested his faithfulness, since thus he had fulfilled the
promises made to the fathers ; but had manifested his mercy to the
Gentiles, since he had called to a participation in 'the kingdom of God,
those among whom the foundation of this kingdom had not been laid,
aud to whom no promises had been given. Such a theoretical contrast
is of course not perfectly strict, but partial, and of a kind frequently
employed by Paul. For he says, and the Old Testament intimates, that
theMessitah would extend his saving efficiency to the Gentiles; hence,
it is evident, that God while he shows mercy to them, at the same time
verifies his faithfulness. In all this, we find nothing unpauline, nothing
foreign to the object of this epistle. It is impossible that Paul could
intend to close with the 14th chapter, but according to the usual style
of the Pauline epistles, a conclusion must necessarily follow, which
these two last chapters furnish.
THE CHURCH AT ROME. 281
How could Paul, from his call to publish the gospel to all the
nations of the world, infer his call to announce the doctrine
of salvation to the Romans, if he had not believed that those
to whom his epistle was especially addressed were Gentiles ?
For the Jews, whether living among the Romans or Greeks,
always considered themselves as belonging not to the e:i2,
fOt'r), but to the one cs, the Xaoc in the diamropa.. In reference
to them, Paul could only have spoken of being sent to one
nation. How could he say (Rom. i. 13) that he wished to
come to Rome in order " to have some fruit " there, " even as
among other Gentiles," by the publication of the gospel, if he
was not writing principally to persons belonging to the Gen
tiles, among whom alone he had hitherto been wont to gain
fruit 1 Verse 14 shows that he was not thinking of Jews in
distant parts. How otherwise could he be induced to assert,
that as elsewhere, so also in the metropolis of the civilized
world, he was not ashamed to publish the gospel ? For in
reference to the Jews, it could make no great difference
whether he met with them at Jerusalem or at Rome ; the
same obstacles to their believing the gospel existed in both
places, owing to which Jesus the Crucified was an offence to
them. It cannot be concluded from his addressing the
Gentile Christians so pointedly in xi. 13, that the epistle in
general was not intended for them ; for at all events— since
there were Jews in the Church, though they formed the
minority — when he expressed anything which was applicable
only to the Gentile members, it was needful that he should
thus distinguish it. If we suppose those Jewish Christians
who taught the continued obligation of the Mosaic Law to
have formed the original body of the Church, it will not be
easy to explain how Gentile Christians who adopted the
Pauline principles (and who must evidently have been a
minority), could join themselves to such. But it is very
different, if we suppose this church to have been constituted
like others of the Gentile Christians of whom we have before
spoken. Moreover, in the Neronian persecution, the Christian
church appears as a new sect hated by the people, a genus
tertium, of whom the people-were disposed to credit the worst
reports, because they were opposed to all the forms of religion
hitherto in existence. But this could not have been the case
if Judaism had been the predominant element in the Roman
282 THE CHUKOH AT KOME.
church. The Christians would then have been scarcely dis
tinguished from the Jews, and it was not usual to pay much
attention to the internal religious disputes of the Jews. In
the controversy with the churches in Lesser Asia, the bishops
of Rome were the opponents of the Jewish Christian Easter ;
this was closely connected with the formation of the Christian
cultus on Pauline principles, and an appeal could here be
made to an ancient tradition. To the marks of an anti- Jewish
tendency belongs also the custom of fasting on the Sabbt.th.
The opinion that this anti-Jewish tendency arose as a reaction
against an earlier Judaizing tendency, is at variance with what
has been said, and is also inconsistent with historical truth ;
for since at a later period we see the hierarchical element
(which is decidedly Jewish, and favourable rather than other
wise to Judaism), peculiarly prominent in the Roman church,
so it is difficult to suppose that exactly at this time a reaction
should be produced against Judaism,1 arising from primitive
Christian knowledge and the Pauline spirit. In the work of'
Hermas, we recognise indeed a conception of Christianity-
more according to James than according to Paul, (and yet not
throughout and entirely Judaizing,) but we know too little of
the relation in which the author of this book stood to the
whole Roman church, to determine anything respecting tho
leading tendency of the latter. This remark applies more
strongly to the Clementines of which the origin is so uncer
tain, and which by the leading sentiments is essentially dis
tinguished from the Shepherd of Hermas, although some
points of affinity exist in the two works. In Rome, the
capital of the world, where the various kinds of religion were
assembled from all countries, the different Christian sects
would soon seek a settlement, and establish themselves. We,
therefore, are not justified in saying of every sect which we
see arising out of the bosom of the Roman church, that it
proceeded from the religious tendency that originally pre
dominated in it, and was a reaction against tendencies subse
quently formed. This applies particularly to the Monarchians,
1 Dr. Bauer, whose views I am here opposing1, in his essay against
Rothe, on the origin of episcopacy in the Christian church, (Tubinger
Zeitschrift fur Theologie,1838, part iii. p. 141), endeavours to prove
that this reaction against Judaism, supposing that to have originally
predominated, took place at a later period in the Roman church.
PAULS EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 283
who yet could not all be referred to a Judaizing element ; for
a Praxeas, of whom we certainly know, that he found a point
of connexion in the whole Roman church, — which cannot be
asserted of other kinds of Monarchians — formed by his
peculiar conceptions of the doctrine of Christ as a God re
vealing and revealed, the most direct opposition to the
Judaizing standing-point, in many respects still more, than
was at that time the case with the common church doctrine
of Subordination. But when the Artemonites appealed to
their agreement with the earlier Roman bishops, we cannot
accept this as historical evidence. All sects have always an
interest to claim a high antiquity for their doctrine, and the
Artemonites could easily make use for their purpose of many
indefinite expressions of earlier doctrinal statements. They
appealed generally to the antiquity of their doctrine in the
church, and yet we know that the ancient hymns and the
apologies could with justice be adduced against them as
witnesses for the doctrine of the divinity of Christ. Wo
consider, therefore, the opinion is well grounded, that the
Roman church was formed principally from the stock of
Gentile Christians, and that the Pauline form of doctrine
originally prevailed among them, i
In this church, the state of affairs was similar to that which
for the most part existed in churches where the Gentilo
Christian element predominated, though mingled with the
Jewish Christian. The Jewish Christians could not bring
themselves to acknowledge the Gentiles, who neglected the
ceremonial law, as altogether their equals in relation to the
kingdom of God ; the Gentile Christians also still retained
those feelings of contempt with which they were wont to
contemplate the Jews, and the manner in which the greater
part of the Jews opposed the publication of the gospel, con-
firmed them in this temper of mind; Rom. xi. 17, 18.
Paul in this epistle lays before the church, which he had
not yet taught personally, the fundamental principles of the
i The testimony of Hilarius (the so-called Ambrosian), to which Bauer
appeals as historical evidence, we certainly dare not estimate too highly ;
for this writer of the second half of the fourth century could hardly make
use of historical sources on the constitution of the Roman church to
which Paul wrote. He had scarcely any other sources of information
than we have ; his testimony appears to be only as deduced from this
epistle according to his own interpretation of it.
284 PAUL'S EPISTLE TO THE KOMANS.
gospel; he wished, as he himself says, Rom. xv. 15, to recall
to their remembrance l what had been announced to them as
the doctrine of Christianity, and to testify that this was the
genuine Christian truth, which alone could satisfy the reli
gious wants of human nature, and exhorted them not to allow
themselves to be led astray by any strange doctrine. This
epistle may therefore serve to inform us, what was in Paul's
estimation the essence of the gospel. He begins with assuring
them that shame could not have kept him back from pub
lishing the gospel in the capital of the civilized world j for
he never had occasion to be ashamed of the doctrine of
the gospel, since everywhere, among Gentiles as well as Jews,
it had shown itself capable of working with divine power for
the salvation of men, if they only believed it ; by this doctrine
they all obtained what all alike needed, — that which was
essential to the salvation of men, — the means by which they
might be brought from a state of estrangement from God in
sin, to become holy before God. In order to establish this,
it was necessary for the apostle to show that all, both Jew»
and Gentiles, were in need of this means. He endeavoured to
1 It is generally supposed that the OTTO fj-epovs in this verse relates to
some particular passages of the epistle, which might seem to be written
in too bold a tone. We might admit this, if any severe censure were to
be met with in this epistle on the faults of his church, as in the first
Epistle to the Corinthians. In this case, we might suppose that Paul
would think proper to apologise for such harsh expressions, as pro
ceeding from one who was not personally known to the church. But
such animadversions on the church we do not find in this epistle; and
all that he says respecting the state of the Gentile world, to which they
belonged before their conversion, as well as in all that he says to warn
them against self-exaltation, I can find nothing which would occasion
an apology on the part of such a man as Paul. Hence, I cannot help
considering the anb /j-epovs only as qualifying iheroKfj^gorepov, or that it
relates to what follows. Paul places the boldness in this, that he, though
personally unknown to the church as a teacher, ventured to write to
them such an epistle in which he mightappear to announce the doctrine
of salvation, as if it were entirely new to them. But he explains his
design, that it was only to "put them in mind" of what they had
already heard, and he believed that, in virtue of the ministry committed
to him by divine grace, that he was justified in making known the
gospel to the Gentiles. He even qualifies the "putting them in mind "
by the addition of e'irl, thus representing it as something accessory, and
not absolutely required. In these words, in the interpretation of which
I cannot agree with Bauer, I can detect nothing unpauline. On the
contrary, I find here the same Pauline mode of address as in Rom. i. 12.
PAUL'S EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 285
lead them both to a consciousness of their sinfulness and
guilt, and to take notice of that which might prevent either
party, according to their respective standing-points, from
attaining this consciousness, the self-deceptions and sophisms,
which obstructed the discernment of the truths which he
announced. He had then to point out to the Gentiles that
their consciences testified against them, that they could not
excuse themselves in their sins by pleading ignorance of God
and his law ; he objected to the Jews, that that law, in the
possession of which they were so proud, could only utter a
sentence of condemnation against them as its violators; ho
exposed their self-delusion in thinking, that by the works
of the law such as they could perform, or in virtue of their
descent from the theocratic nation, they could appear as holy
before God. After pointing out that both parties were
equally in need of the means of salvation, the object lie
had in view led him to develop the manner in which man, by
faith in the Redeemer, might become holy before God, and to
exhibit the blessed consequences that followed from this new
relation to God; and in this development, he takes pains, as
is evident in various passages, so to influence the two parts of
which the church at Home consisted, the Gentile and the
Jewish Christians, that uniting in an equally humble
acknowledgment of the grace to which they were indebted for
their salvation, neither might exalt themselves above the
other; he closes the whole development with extolling that
grace, to which all stood in the same relation, being equally
in need of deliverance, and which all must at last unite in
glorifying.
In the practical exhortations which form the last part
of this epistle, the wisdom is apparent with which Paul treats
of the relations in which the new converts to Christianity
were placed; he anticipates the errors into which they were
likely to be seduced, and endeavours to suggest the best pre
servatives against their influence. The seditious spirit of tho
Jews, which refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of any
Gentile government (see my Church History, vol. i. p. 50,)
could not find ready entrance into the Church at Rome,
since the majority of its members, being Gentile Christians,
were not exposed to infection on this side. But similar
errors, from a misunderstanding of Christian truth, might
286 PAUL'S EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.
easily arise among them,, as actually happened at a later
period. Accustomed to consider themselves as members of
the kingdom of God, in opposition to the heathen world, they
were in danger of giving an outward form to this opposition,
which properly belonged to the internal disposition, and thus
a hostile tendency would be called forth against all existing
civil institutions, since they would be looked upon as all
belonging to the kingdom of the evil spirit. With the con
sciousness of belonging to the kingdom of God, a misap
prehension arising from carnal views might be connected,
that those who were destined to rule hereafter in the kingdom
of the Messiah, need not in the present life submit to worldly
governments. Such a carnal misapprehension might easily
be combined with the doctrine of Christian freedom, and the
apostle on other occasions had thought it needful to caution
against it; Gal. v. 13. He wished to be beforehand in op
posing such practical errors, which his knowledge of human
nature led him to anticipate, even if they were not already
visible; accordingly, he strictly enjoined on the Roman
Christians, that they ought to consider the institution of civil
government generally as a divine ordinance, for a definite
object in the plan of Providence;1 that, under this aspect,
they must view the government actually existing, and demean
themselves conformably to it.
At the close, he notices a special practical difference in the
church. But it may be disputed, in what light we are to view
it. As in the fourteenth chapter he places in opposition those
who eat, and those who eat not, and by the latter apparently
intends those who scrupled to eat flesh and drink wine, and
confine themselves to a vegetable diet, (compare v. 2, and
v. 21,) some have been led to conclude,2 that in this church a
strong ascetic tendency, entirely forbidding animal food and
1 It was not the apostle's design ir that passage to develop the whole
doctrine of the reciprocal duties of rulers and subjects ; but he
pursues only one marked antithetical reference, in order to warn,
Christians of that misapprehension, and hence he leaves all other topics
untouched, Avhich otherwise would naturally fall under discussion.
2 This view, with various modifications, has been brought forward by
Eichorn, in his introduction to the New Testament, and by Bauer in his
essay on this epistle ; by the latter in connexion with his view of
a predominant Jewish Christian tendency in the Roman church, allied
to the later Ebionitism, and containing its germ.
PAUL'S EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 287
strong drink, had found an entrance, similar to the doctrine
of the later Encratitse. Such a tendency, however foreign to
the Hebrew and Grecian religious systems, had in that age
insinuated itself in various forms, both among the Jews and
Gentiles, owing to the change produced by the breaking up of
the ancient mental habitudes of the world, and effected a
junction with Christianity, by a mistaken view of the con
trariety between the spirit and the flesh, and of the opposition
between the world and Christianity. But how can what Paul
says on individual cases, be referred to persons under the
influence of this tendency ? " Let not him that cateth" (he
says in v. 3), " despise him that eateth not ; and let not him
who eateth not judge him that eateth;" that is, not condemn,
not disallow his participation in the kingdom of God ; yet
persons of this ascetic tendency did not altogether condemn
those who would not consent to such abstinence, but they
believed that they were inferior to themselves, and not so
far advanced in the perfection of the spiritual life. Paul
therefore ought rather to have said, Let such a one despise
him that eateth. Or we must assume that these persons had
gone so far as to consider the eating of flesh to be absolutely
sinful. But this they could have said only on the principles
of a certain dualistic theosophy, which viewed God not as the
origin of all creatures ; and if Paul had met with such a
scheme, he would certainly not have treated it with so much
tolerance, but have felt it his duty to combat it strenuously,
as utterly opposed to the standing-point of Christian piety.
Nor would the exhortation addressed to the other side not to
despise such a one, have been suitable in this case ; for persons
of this tendency had nothing which exposed them to con
tempt, but it was rather to be feared that, by such a stricter
mode of living, they would be held in greater respect than
was their due. Besides, how could Paul say of such a one
in v. 6, " He that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not and
giveth God thanks?" Such persons would want the disposi
tion to thank God for all the gifts which he had granted for
human subsistence. How could he, in reference to such a
case, say in v. 21, " It is good neither to eat flesh nor to drink
wine, in order to give no offence to a brother1?" It could
give no offence to one who was zealous in practising such
asceticism, if he saw another brother living with less strict-
PAULS EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.
ness. But if other Christians believed that they ought to
follow his example, he might to his injury be confirmed
in his delusion, that such a mode of living had something in
it excellent or meritorious. Least of all could we suppose
that Paul would treat persons of this sort simply as weak,
and' show them so much indulgence, without discussing more
fully the principle that formed the basis of their standing-
point. And if we do not assume that this principle was
an avowed dualism which he must have combated, yet, on any
supposition, he could not have acted with so much mildness
and forbearance towards an ascetic arrogance of this kind,
which was equally in diametric opposition to his doctrine
of justification and to the essence of Christian humility. Of
such a perversion of religious sentiment, it could not be ex
pected that it would gradually be overcome by the progressive
development of faith as the root of the whole Christian life ;
but it was rather to be feared, that a principle so alien to the
Christian life, and so much favoured by certain tendencies of
the times, would gather increasing strength, and injure more
and more the healthy development of Christianity: several
appearances of this kind in the following age justify us in this
conclusion. How very differently does Paul speak against
such a tendency in the Epistle to the Colossians ! Evidently
the persons towards whom Paul enjoins forbearance, were
such who distinguished certain days as in a special sense dedi
cated to God, and who could not yet bring themselves to the
Christian standing-point, that all days ought in an equal
manner to be dedicated to God. We must here recognise the
reaction of the Jewish standing-point, (which, since it had its
indisputable right in the development of religious truth, and
could not be altogether set aside by a single effort, Paul,
unless its claims were arrogantly set forth, always treated
with indulgence), arid we shall find sufficient reason for refer
ring another topic which concerns the question of abstinence
to the same tendency. We shall be led to think of the Jewish
Christians, who were still strict observers of the Mosaic law,
not only in keeping certain days, but also in refraining from
certain kinds of food. We shall be less surprised at this,
if we recollect that generally the Christians of Jewish descent,
particularly those of Palestine, when they lived at Rome,
adhered to their former Jewish mode of life. But in the Mosaic.
PAUL'S EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 289
laws relative to food, there was nothing that could occasion
scruples about eating flesh or drinking wine. Or we must
assume that Paul spoke here only hypothetically and hyper-
bolically, without thinking of a case, which might really occur
under existing circumstances, although this is by no means
probable, judging from his mode of expressing himself.
Further, if we think of those Jewish Christians who believed
that the Mosaic laws respecting food were still obligatory, it
is indeed evident, that Paul must admonish the Gentile
Christians who were entangled in no such perplexities, that
they ought riot to despise their weaker Jewish brethren on
account of their scrupulosity, nor lead them to act against
their consciences, by working on their feelings of shame. But
would he have expressed himself so mildly, if these Jewish
Christians had ventured to condemn others who partook
of food which they held to be prohibited? In this case, we
must suppose it to be the opinion of these Jewish Christians,
that the Mosaic law was binding on Gentile Christians, and
that without its observance they could not be partakers of
the kingdom of God. But we know how emphatically Paul
always expressed himself against those who maintained such a
sentiment, and in doing so, invalidated his doctrine of justifi
cation by faith alone. In addition — and on this point we
must lay still greater weight — Paul exhorts the strong in
faith and the unscrupulous to take into consideration the
necessities of the weak, and rather to refrain from food, which
from the standing-point of their own conviction they could
partake of without scruple, than give offence to their weaker
brethren. But how would it agree with the principles of this
apostle, that he should advise the Gentile Christians to make
such a concession, by which they would practically have
recognised for their own standing-point the obligatory force of
the Mosaic law — since he was more wont to urge on the
Gentile Christians not to give place to tbe Judaizers, who
wished to compel them to the observance of the law, but to
maintain their Christian freedom against them. In fact,
there was no ground for such an exhortation. The Jewish
Christians had no cause to be uneasy, because the Gentile
Christians did not trouble themselves about the Mosaic laws
respecting food. By the stipulation concluded by the apo
stolic convention at Jerusalem, they were set at liberty from.
VOL. i. u
290 PAUL'S EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.
every such restriction. If this gave offence to the Jewish
Christians, the offence was unavoidably founded in the evan
gelical truth itself.
We must therefore think of something connected indeed
with the religious standing-point of the Judaizers, but yet
something separable from the observance of the Mosaic law, —
something that with more appearance of justice the Jewish
Christians might require of their Gentile brethren, — some
thing, in which a concession to the weakness of others might
be demanded of Gentile Christians, without encroaching on
their Christian freedom. This could be nothing else than
abstaining from the flesh of animals offered to idols. Every
thing in this section would agree with this alone. The
passage would have a meaning applicable to the circum
stances of the times, if we suppose those persons to be spoken
of who, in certain cases, would rather abstain altogether from
animal food, and eat only herbs, that they might unknowingly
be in danger of eating something unclean and defiling, the
flesh of idolatrous sacrifices. In v. 2, Paul presents the con
trast in the extreme point ; on the one side, a strength of
faith which proceeds so far as to banish all scruples respecting
the enjoyment of food, and on the other side, the extreme o
scrupulosity, arising from weakness of faith, which would
rather eat no meat whatever, in order to avoid the danger of'
eating the flesh of animals offered to idols. Now, it is evident,
how Paul could say, that if needs be, it would be better not to
eat flesh, nor to drink wine, rather than disturb the con
science of a weak brother. We need only recollect that the
heathens accompanied their sacrifices with libations ; l that the
same scruples which existed relative to the meat of the sacri
fices, would also arise in reference to the wine of the libations.
But that the apostle has not expressly mentioned the sacri
fices, can in our opinion occasion no perplexity. He had in
view only such readers as would at once understand from his
words what he meant ; so in ordinary letters, many things are
not stated in detail, because it is presumed that the persons
to whom they are addressed perfectly understand the allusions.
We must therefore conceive the state of affairs in this
church to have been similar to that in the .Corinthian, which
1 See the Mishnah in the treati --Q rni mis on idolatrous worship,
c. ii. § 3, ed. Surenhus. P. iv. 369, 331.
PAUL'S EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 291
we have already noticed. Some gave themselves no concern
about the injunction against meat offered to idols, like the
free-thinking Corinthians, and ridiculed the scrupulosity of
the Jewish Christians; others, on the contraiy, considered
the eating of such food as absolutely sinful, and hence passed
sentence of condemnation on those who ventured to eat every
thing without distinction. Thus also some were still too
much accustomed to consider certain days as peculiarly
sacred, according to the Jewish standing-point ; those who
thought more freely, and viewed the subject from the pure
Christian standing-point, were disposed to make no religious
difference between one day and another. Such a state of
things as this could only exist in a community which was
formed similarly to the Corinthian church, which consisted
of a majority of Christians of Gentile descent, but with an
addition to the original materials of a subordinate Jewish
element. ! Paul begins his exhortation, without particularly
designating the persons he addressed, yet having chiefly in
view the more free-thinking Gentile Christians, which also
confirms the notion, that these formed the main body of the
church. He declares the standing-point of these persons to
be correct in theory; but as in the first epistle to the
Corinthians, he censures the want of Christian love in them,
who so little regarded what affected the welfare of their
weaker brethren, and with that defect, the misapprehension
of Christian freedom, which was shown in their laying such
great stress on what was outward and in itself indifferent, as
if the true good of Christians consisted in such things, instead
of being something grounded in their inner life, which would
remain secure whether they could use or not use these out
ward things. The participation of the kingdom of God
consisted not in meat and drink, (the true possessions and
privileges, the true freedom of the members of Cod's kingdom
consisted not in eating or drinking this or that, outward
things in general being signified by this expression.) but in
the participation of those heavenly possessions of the inner
man — righteousness (in the Pauline sense, the designation of
1 It agrees with this view, that in Rom. xv. 7 (a passage closely con
nected with what goes before), the subject is the agreement between
Gentile and Jewish Christians; and that Paul in Rom. vi. 17, warns
them of the common Judaizers, who by the spread of their principles
endeavoured to excite divisions in such mixed churches.
292 PAUL'S LAST JOUKNEY TO JERUSALEM.
the whole relation in which the^ IK iritrrewe diKaios stands to
God,) the heavenly peace flowing from it, the happiness ot
the divine life, Horn. xv. 17. He recommends mutual for
bearance and love to both parties, that no one should judge
another, but each one should seek to be well grounded in his
own convictions, and act accordingly; but that the more
mature in Christian conviction should condescend to the
standing-point of those who were not so far advanced, since
more is required from the strong than from the weak.
After Paul had spent three months in Achaia, he wished to
depart with the sums collected for the poor Christians at
Jerusalem, and thus to close his apostolic ministry in the
East.1 This plan was wisely formed by him, and this his last
1 Though I agree for the most part with Dr. Schneckenburger in
what he says (in his work on the Acts) on the intention of this last
journey to Jerusalem ; yet I cannot entirely assent to what he thinks
may be deduced from the silence of the Acts on this collection, and the
object of this journey, in favour of the hypothesis which he has
advanced. I must also avow myself opposed to Dr. Bauer's views, who
in his Essay on the Romans, and his Dissertation on Episcopacy,
endeavours to show that the author of the Acts misrepresented the
facts, and set them in a false light from a one-sided, apologetic inten
tion ; see his review of Dr. Schneckenburger in the Jahrbuchfiir wis-
tenscliaftliche Kritik. March 1841. These two critics are struck with
the omission of a transaction of so much importance in the historical
connexion of events, and hence believe, that they must find out a
special reason for it in the object which the author of the Acts pro
posed to himself in writing his work. As he was disposed to assume
ignorance of the continued division between the Jews and Gentile
Christians, and always represents only the Jews, and not the Jewish
Christians, as adversaries of the apostle, so he could not adduce any
thing which might testify against his assumption, or that even might
serve to lessen the opposition which he kept out of sight ; and hence he
could not represent this last journey of Paul in its true light. Had we
reason to expect in this age of the church, a comprehensive historical
representation explaining the causes and connexion of events, if the
Acts wore the appearance of such a work, had its author been a Chris
tian Thucydides or Polybius— we might then have admitted the infer
ence, that either he was at too great a distance from the events to know
anything of this collection, or of the real object of this journey, or that
owing to 'a one-sided bias, he had consciously or unconsciously falsified
the history. But such a statesmanlike point of view, which could be
formed only where the development of events could be surveyed with a
certain calmness of mind and a philosophic interest, was totally foreign
to the standing-point of Christian history at this time, and especially
to that of the Acts. It consists of memoirs, as the author gave them
from the sources of information within his reach, or from his own
PAUL'S LAST JOURNEY TO JERUSALEM. 293
journey to Jerusalem with the collection is to be viewed as
marking an epoch in the development of the church, whoso
importance we must consider more closely. A year had
passed since he had with great zeal set this collection on foot
among the churches of Gentile Christians in Asia and
Europe, and it was of importance to him that it should be
very productive. He had already written to the Corinthian
church, 1 Cor. xvi. 4, that if this collection equalled his
wishes, he would convey it himself to Jerusalem. It was
certainly not merely his intention to assist the poor of the
church at Jerusalem in their temporal necessities ; he had an
object still more important for the development of the church,
to effect a radical cure of the breach between the Jewish and
the Gentile Christians, and to seal for perpetuity the unity of1
the church. As the immediate power of love can effect more
to heal the schism of souls, than all formal conferences in
favour of union, so the manner in which the Gentile churches
evinced their love and gratitude to the Mother church, would
accomplish what had not yet been attained by all attempts at
union. Paul wished, since he was accompanied to Jerusalem
by the messengers of these churches, who practically contra
dicted the charges disseminated against him by his Jewish
recollection, without following any definite plan. He mentions the
last journey of Paul to Jerusalem, on account of the serious con
sequences to the apostle himself, without reflecting further on his object
in undertaking it, and probably passed over the collection as being in
that view unimportant ; his interest would be engaged by other objects ;
and reflections which would only present themselves from a comprehen
sive survey of history, would be totaMy absent from his thoughts. Yet
this bountiful collection might be included among the practical proofs
which Paul gave (Acts xxi. 19), of the success of his ministry among
the Gentiles ; why should he have been intentionally silent respecting
it? If he could say what is mentioned in that passage, without injury
to the design imputed to him, could he not also say, The presbyters of
the church at Jerusalem praised God for kindling such active brotherly
love in the hearts of the believing Gentiles. Yet the author of the
Acts, by his account in ch. xx. v. 21, implies the continued enmity of
the Jewish Christians against Paul. I do not see, therefore, what
could have induced him designedly to have suppressed earlier facts
relating to it. In Paul's defence in Acts xxiv. 17, there is actually an
allusion to the collection, which therefore the author could not have
intended to conceal. But if the Acts had been a connected history, or
a narrative from one source, this collection, that is only mentioned
accidentally, must have been recorded earlier in its place in the regular
series of events.
294 PAUL'S LAST JOURNEY TO JERUSALEM.
and Judaizing adversaries; — that the proofs of the sympa
thising and self-sacrificing love of the Gentile Christians
should serve as evidence to the Jewish Christians, who had
imbibed prejudices against them, of what could be effected by
the preaching of the gospel independently of the law of
Moses ; so that they would be obliged to acknowledge the
operation of God's Spirit among these, whom they had always
been indisposed to receive as brethren in the faith. Paul
himself plainly indicates this to have been his chief object in
this collection and journey, (2 Cor. ix. 12 — 15 ;) that not only
this service of love might relieve the wants of the Christians
at Jerusalem, but that many hearts might be excited to gra
titude to God ; when they saw how the faith of Gentile
Christians had verified itself by this act of kindness, they
would feel compelled to praise God for this practical testimony
to the gospel, and through the manner in which the grace of
God had shown its efficacy among them, being filled with
love to them, they would make them objects of their inter
cessions. A reciprocal communion of prayer in thanksgiving
and intercession, was always considered as the mark and seal
of genuine Christian brotherhood ; he therefore wished to
bring about such a union of heart between the Jewish and
Gentile Christians. Before he extended his labours for the
spread of the church in other lands, he was anxious for the
security and stability of the work of which the foundation
had been already laid ; but which was exposed to the greatest
danger on the side of that earliest controversy, which was
always threatening to break forth again.
Yet it all depended on this, whether the apostle of the
Gentiles could succeed in carrying his wisely formed plan into
effect ; he was well aware, what hindrances and dangers
obstructed his progress. It was questionable whether the
power of love would succeed in overcoming the narrow-heart-
edness of the Jewish spirit, and induce the Jewish Christians
to receive as brethren, the Gentile brethren who accompanied
him. And what had he to expect from the Jews, when he,
after they had heard so much of his labours among the
Gentiles, which had excited their fanatical hatred, — personally
appeared among them ; if he who in his youth had been
known as a zealous champion of Pharisaism, was now seen
accompanied by uncircumcised Gentiles as messengers from
PAUL'S LAST JOURNEY TO JERUSALEM. 293
Gentile churches, whose equal birthright for the kingdom of
the Messiah he zealously advocated? Fully alive to the
difficulties and dangers which he must overcome in order to
attain his great object, he entreated the Roman Christians for
their intercessory prayers, that he might be delivered from
the unbelievers among the Jews, and that this service might
be well received by the Christians at Jerusalem, that he might
come to them from thence with joy and be refreshed by them ;
Horn. xv. 31, 32.
CHAPTER VIII.
THE FIFTH AND LAST JOUENET OK PAUL TO JERUSALEM— ITS IMMEDIATE
CONSEQUENCES— HIS IMPKISONMK.VT IN PALESTINE.
AFTER staying three months in Achaia, Paul departed from
Corinth in the spring of the year 58 or 59, about the time of
the Jewish Passover. His companions went before him to
Troas, and he first visited Philippi, where he joined Luke, who
had been left there some time before. As he earnestly wished
to be in Jerusalem at the Pentecost, it was necessary to
hasten his journey ; on that account he did not venture to go
to Ephesus, but sent from Miletus for the overseers of the
Ephesian church, and probably those of other neighbouring
Asiatic churches,1 to come to him, that in the anticipation of
1 We cannot conclude with certainty from Paul's farewell address to
the overseers of the church, which is given in the 20th chapter of the
Acts, that the overseers of other churches in Lesser Asia, besides those
of Ephesus, were present on that occasion. The words in Acts xx. 25,
iv ols 8iri\0ov, may favour this supposition, since they denote rather
travelling through a certain district, than a continued residence in one
place ; but these words may also be fairly understood of the apostle's
labours in different parts of Ephesus, and the visits he paid to the
houses of the presbyters. The singular rb iraipviov, v. 28, 29, leads us
to think most naturally of only one church, though it may be here used
collectively, and include many churches. It is worthy of 'notice, that
Irenceus applies it to the overseers of distinct churches, and speaks of it
in very decided lanjruago. "In Mileto convocatis episcopis et presby-
teris, qui erant ab Epheso, et rcliquis proximia civtatibus," iii. c. 14,
§ 2. Judging from the character of Irenreus and his times, it is not
probable thatThe would be induced simply by that expression in Paul's
296 PAUL'S FAREWELL ADDRESS TO THE
the great dangers that awaited him, he might pour forth his
heart to them perhaps for the last time, and utter the parting-
words of fatherly love.1 We recognise in this farewell ad-
address, to deviate from the letter of the narrative in the Acts. Hence
we might rather suppose, that Irengeus was decided in giving a different
representation by historical traditions or documents with which he had
become acquainted in Lesser Asia. Yet the bias of the episcopal
system (which was then germinating) might perhaps occasion a different
construction of the passage, than the literal narrative would warrant,
independently of any tradition. Paul applies to the presbyters the
epithet eTriffKoiroi ; now it could not then be surprising to find the
tiritTKoiroi designated presbyters, for this latter name was still the
generic term by which both might be denoted, but the name eViV/coTroi
was already exclusively applied to the first church governors, the pre
sidents of the college of presbyters. Since, then, we proceed on the
supposition that this institution of church government was the same
from the beginning, we must hence conclude from the name eViV/coTror
that the bishops of other churches were present at this meeting, and
hence Irenaeus says expressly " episcopis et presbyteris." But if we
admit that this meeting consisted of the overseers of the various
churches in Lesser Asia, the discrepancy between the three years, Acts
xx. 31, and the two years and three months, of the duration of Paul's
stay at Ephesus, according to Luke's narrative, would cease ; for ww
might then suppose, that Paul, before he went to Ephesus, spent nine
months in other places of Lesser Asia, where he founded churches.
1 Dr. Bauer and Dr. Schneckenburger think that it can be shown, that
this address in the 20th ch. of the Acts was not delivered by Paul in its
present form, but that it was framed by the author of the Acts, on the
same plan as the whole of his history, according to the conciliatory apo
logetic tendency already noticed. We would not indeed pledge our
selves that the address was taken down as Paul delivered it, with official
accuracy — but that it has been faithfully reported in its essential con
tents, and that an outline of it was in existence earlier than the whole
of tthe Acts. Not only do we find nothing in it which does not cor
respond to the situation and feelings of the apostle, but it also contains
several marks of not being cast in the same mould as the whole of the
Acts. Among these marks we reckon the mention of the three years,
which does not agree with the reckoning in the Acts, the mention of
teaching " from house to house," v. 20, and of the warning voices of the
prophets, v. 23. (Schneckenburger, indeed, considers this to be a pro-
lepsis, and finds in it a mark of non-originality ; but it is not at all
improbable, that already in the churches with whom Paul had stayed,
he had received warnings of the dangers that threatened him from the
fanatical rage of the Jews, though Luke, who did not accompany Paul
everywhere, has not mentioned this in his brief narrative). Besides, as
Paul, speaking of a higher necessity, by which he felt compelled to go
to Jerusalem, " bound in spirit," we may infer that this journey, under
taken for what he considered the work committed to him by the Lord,
had a greater significance and importance, as appears from the expla
nation we have already given, but which is not so represented in the
OVERSEERS OF THE EPHESIAN CHURCH. 297
dress, in which Paul's heart, thoroughly imbued with the love
of Christ, expresses itself in so affecting a manner, his
fatherly anxiety for the churches, whose overseers heard his
warning voice for the last time, and whom he was about to-
leave at a time full of sad and dark foreboding, when many
dangers threatened pure Christianity.
He could not foresee with certainty what consequences
would result from his journey to Jerusalem, for these de
pended on a combination of circumstances, too intricate for
any human sagacity to unravel. But yet he could not be
unaware of what the fanatical rage of the Jewish zealots
threatened, and what it might perpetrate, under the malad
ministration of the worthless Procurator Felix,1 who com
bined the meanness of a slave with the caprice of a tyrant ;
at Jerusalem, too, where Might prevailed against Right, and
assassins (the notorious Sicarii) acted as the tools of any party
who were base enough to employ them. In the churches
which he had visited on his journey hither, many individuals
had warned him in inspired language of the danger that
threatened him at Jerusalem, and thereby confirmed what
his own presentiments, as well as his sagacity, led him to ex
pect, similar to those sad anticipations which he expected
when he was last at Corinth ; Horn. xv. 31.
There are especially two warnings and exhortations relative
Acts. If this address indicates that it was delivered before delegates
from various Asiatic churches, we may also number this among the
marks, not that we would attach equal weight to all these marks ; but
taken collectively, their testimony appears to prove something. And it
Luke had before him an earlier written draft of Paul's address, con
taining the presentiment he expressed of his impending death, I do nofc
see how any one is justified in maintaining that Paul could not have
uttered it, in case this anticipation had not been fulfilled. According
to truth, he must have allowed him to speak as he actually spoke. But
it could not be any difficulty to Luke or to the persons for whom this
memoir was in the first place designed, if a presentiment of Paul's
respecting his impending fate was not fulfilled in its full extent. In
fallible foreknowledge of future events was certainly, according to the
Christian idea of that age, not among the marks of a genuine apostle,
and the contrary is rather implied in Paul's own words, v. 22. Ho
speaks in a somewhat dubious tone of the fate that awaited him. Who
ever might have forged after the event an address of Paul's, would have
made him speak in a very different and more decided tone.
1 Of whom Tacitus says; " Per omnem ecevitiam ac libidinem ju»
regium servili ingenio exercuit." Hist. v. 9.
298 PAUL'S FAREWELL ADDBESS TO THE
to the future which he addressed to the overseers of the
church, and enforced by the example of his own labours
during three years' residence among them. He foresaw, that
false teachers from other parts would insinuate themselves
into these churches, and that even among themselves such
would arise and gain many adherents. He exhorts them,
therefore, to watch that the doctrine of salvation which he
had faithfully published to them for so long a period might be
preserved in its purity. The false teachers whom he here
pointed out were most probably distinct from the class of
common Judaizers ; for in churches in which the Gentile
Christian, that is, the Hellenic element,1 so predominated as
in those of Lesser Asia, such persons could not be so dangerous;
and particularly when such false teachers were described as
proceeding from the bosom of the church itself, it must be
presumed that these heretical tendencies must have developed
themselves from, a mixture with Christianity of the mental
elements already existing in the church. Might not Paul's
experience during his long stay in Lesser Asia, have given
him occasion to feel these anxieties for the future 1 As im
mediately after announcing the danger that threatened the
church, he reminded them that for three years he had not
ceased, day or night, to warn each one among them with
tears, we may infer that he had at that time cause thus to
address the consciences of their overseers, and to warn them
so impressively against the adulteration of Christian truth.
We here see the first omens indicated by the apostle of a
new conflict which awaited pure Christianity.3 At the close
1 Schneckenburger, p. 136, objects against this remark, that in the
Gentile-Christian Galatian churches, Judaizing false teachers could pro
duce the greatest confusion; but the degree of Grecian cultivation in
Oalatia and at Ephesus makes a difference here.
2 As from what is said in the text it is easily shown, that Paul must
have held such a warning of the propagation of new perversions of
Christian truth to be called for ; so I can find no ground for Bauer's and
Schneckenburger's assumption, that something is here attributed to
Paul which he could not say from his own standing-point ; Avhether with
Bauer, it is assumed that such a prophesying is formed according to the
appearances of a later period, or with Schneckenburger, that what was
present, what had actually fallen under Paul's own notice, is here trans
ferred to the future. Schneckenburger finds something intentional in
Paul's mentioning nothing of the conflicts which he had sustained with
the false teachers, the Judaizers; and in speaking only of such conflicts
which would follow his departure. But there certainly lies in Paul's
OVERSEERS OF THE EPHBSIAN CHURCH. 209
of his address, Paul refers them to the example of disinte
rested and self-denying love, which he had given them : — ho
had required of them neither gold, nor silver, nor raiment,
but as they well knew, had provided for his own temporal
wants and those of his followers by the labour of his own
hands. These words are admirably suited to the close of the
address. By reminding the presbyters of the proofs of his
disinterested love, and of his zeal which shunned no toil and
no privation for the salvation of souls, he gave still greater
weight to his exhortations. The 33d verse is closely con
nected with the 31st, where he reminds them of his labours
among them for their souls, and in both verses he holds out
his own example for their imitation. He expresses this still
more clearly in the words, " I have showed you all things (or
in every way), how that so labouring ye ought to support the
weak/ and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, ' It is more
blessed to give than to receive.' " It conveyed the exhorta
tion, that in the discharge of their office they should avoid
all appearance of selfishness, that they should rather earn their
own livelihood, and give up their claim to what they had a
right to expect from the church to which they had consecrated
their powers. He impressed this upon them in the most
words a reference to that which he had already said by way of warning
to the presbyters. But he could speak of these adulterations of
Christianity as future, since he had detected them in the germ, and
their further development was at first cheeked by the power of his per
sonal influence.
1 Certainly the dcrflei/eTs in Acts xx. 35, are not those who needed help
in respect of their bodily wants; in that case, why should not a more
definite word be used 1 Neither does the connexion suit such an inter
pretation, for Paul does not say that he laboured that he might be able
to give to the poor, or that he might support his poor associates; but
that the church might not be obliged to contribute neither to them nor
to him any thing for their support. And this manifestly in order that
every occasion might be taken from the weak, who were not sufficiently
established in Christian principles, who would be easily disposed to
entertain the suspicion of private advantage. The use of the word
ao-06^5 in 2 Cor. xi. 29 also favours this interpretation, and what I
assigns in both the Epistles to the Corinthians as the reasons ot such
conduct. Thus also this exhortation stands in closer connexion with
what goes before ; for if the presbyters avoided all appearance of seliish-
ness they would have a firmer hold on the general confidence, and thus,
like Paul himself in reference to the Judaizers, could more succe;
oppose the false teachers, who endeavoured for their own ends to excit
mistrust of the existing teachers and guides of the church.
300 PAUL'S LAST JOURNEY TO JERUSALEM.
delicate manner, since he does not use the express form of
exhortation, but presents his example for imitation under
similar circumstances. Paul indeed declares elsewhere, that
the preachers of the gospel, as Christ himself had expressed
it, were entitled to receive their maintenance from the
churches for whose spiritual welfare they laboured. And it
may appear strange that he here departs from this rule, and
that he should here prescribe to all the presbyters what else
where he has represented as an exception arising out of very
peculiar circumstances, and as something suited only to his
individual standing-point.1 But there is a difference between
the circumstances of itinerant missionaries and those of the
overseers of churches whose activity at first is not so claimed
by their pastoral duties as to prevent their carrying on at the
same time their former secular employment ; and if they
thus laboured with self-sacrificing love without any appearance
of selfishness, their authority and influence, which would be
required to counteract the false teachers, would be much in
creased.
In this whole address, as suited the feelings and aim of one
who was probably taking a last farewell of his spiritual chil
dren, the hortatory element is throughout predominant ; if
we suppose an apologetic element, which is very doubtful,
it is at all events quite subordinate to the former. It is very
improbable, that when he spoke of his own disinterestedness,
he intended to repel the accusations of his Judaizing adver
saries; for though he was obliged to answer such charges 'in
writing to the Corinthians, we are not to infer that a similar
exculpation of himself was required in all the churches.
"With greater reason we may find in what he says of the com
pleteness of his teaching in the doctrines of salvation, a refer
ence to the accusations of his Judaizing opponents, of which
we have so often spoken. But even this is very doubtful ;
for in any case, without an apologetic design, and simply to
excite the presbyters to fidelity in holding fast the pure doc
trine which they had received, he would of necessity remind
them how important he had felt it to keep back nothing from
them that was necessary for salvation, and that he was free
from blame if, after all, they should be guilty of unfaithfulness.
1 For -which reason Schneckenburger thinks it improbable that Paul
BO expressed himself.
PAUL AT JERUSALEM. 301
Such an address could not but make a deep impression on
their hearts, of which we have a simple and striking descrip
tion in the Acts xx. 37, 38.
When Paul arrived at Csesarea Stratonis, within two days'
journey of Jerusalem, he was warned of fresh dangers that
threatened him. The members of the church and his com
panions united their entreaties that he -would be careful
of -his life, and not proceed any further. But though he was
far from the enthusiastic zeal that panted for martyrdom,
though he never neglected any methods of Christian pru
dence, in order to preserve his life for the service of his
Lord and of the Church, yet as he himself declared, he
counted his life as nothing, if required to sacrifice it in the
ministry entrusted to him. However much a heart so ten
derly susceptible, so open to all pure human emotions as his,
must have been moved by the tears of his friends, who loved
him as their spiritual father, yet he suffered not his resolution
to be shaken, but resisted all these impressions, in order to
follow the call of duty; he left all events to the will of'
the Lord, in which at last his Christian brethren concurred.
The next day after his arrival at Jerusalem, Paul with his
companions visited James the brother of the Lord, at whose
house the presbyters of the church were assembled. They
listened with great interest to his account of the effects of the
gospel among the Gentiles. But James called his attention
to the fact, that a great number of Jews who believed on
Jesus as the Messiah, and were yet zealous and strict
observers of the Mosaic law, were prejudiced against him;1 for
1 Dr. Bauer has attempted to show, that the words in Acts xxi. 20,
TUV TreTTiffrfvKorcav, are a gloss, and that the Jews here spoken of are
those who had not received the gospel. It appears to him incredible,
that the number of Christians among the Jews, who in later times were
confined to the small sects of the Ebionites and Nazarenes, could have
been so very great. He thinks, that what James said would perfectly
apply to Jews who had not yet embraced the gospel, of whose plots it
behoved Paul to be careful, and who afterwards actually raised a
tumult against him. Origen indeed says, Tom. I. in Joh. § "2, that tho
number of believing Jews in the whole world would not amount to one
hundred and forty-four thousand ; but from the times of Origen we
cannot draw an inference respecting an earlier period. Since Chris
tianity had for a long time spread so successfully among the Jews, their
numbers in the course of twenty years might have increased to several
myriads, as Hegesippus likewise testifies in Eusebius ii. 23; and we
302 PAUL AT JEEUSALEM.
those Judaizers, who everywhere sought to injure Paul's
ministry, had circulated in Jerusalem the charge against him.,
that, not content with releasing the believing Gentiles from
the observance of the Mosaic law, he had required of the
Jews who lived among them not to circumcise their children,
and not to observe the law. This charge, so brought forward,
was certainly false; for Paul combated the outward observ
ance of Judaism only so far as the justification and sanctifica-
tion of men were made to depend upon it. It was his
need not confine the expression to Jews resident in Jerusalem, since at
the Pentecost many would be brought together from other parts. But
many of these believing Jews might not. distinguish themselves from
others, excepting by the acknowledgment of Jesus as the Messiah, and
hence we may account for many of them relapsing into Judaism, when
their own Messianic expectations were not fulfilled. We also find no
intimation that James had warned Paul of danger threatening him
from this class of Jews ; but he only required that he would seek to
regain the confidence of these brethren in the faith, who were filled
with mistrust and suspicion towards him. The connexion of verse 20,
absolutely requires the addition of TCOV TreTno-reuKOTco!/, for how could
James be supposed to tell Paul a fact he Avell knew beforehand, that at
Jerusalem there were so many myriads of Jews, who were all zealous
observers of the law1? Bauer in his review of Schneckenburger's work
has acknowledged that this alteration of the text formerly proposed by
him, is untenable; but attempts to solve the difficulty which he here
believes to exist, by another method in connexion with the views held
by himself and Schneckenburger respecting the peculiar standing-point
and object of the Acts. Historical truth must here make her way
through the subjective point of view, into which the author of the Acts
forces everything, and assert her right even against his will. He
wished, forsooth, so to represent matters, as if, by the arrangement
agreed upon by the apostolic convention at Jerusalem, the differences
between the Jewish and Gentile Christians had been settled, and Paul
henceforward had to combat, not with Jewish Christians, but solely
with Jews. Yet against his will he was obliged to grant to historical
truth, that in the machinations against Paul on his last visit to Jeru
salem, the Jewish Christians had the principal share. But as this is
opposed to the point of view on which he proceeds everywhere else, the
subjective and the objective are so mingled by him, that the Jewish
Christians become Jews again, and hence he is led into the error of
overrating the numbers of the former. But after what has been said,
we cannot accede ta the correctness of this too artificial hypothesis.
And if the author had once allowed himself to distort history according
to his subjective point of view, he would surely have remained faithful
to this view, and on this last occasion would have named only Jews as
the calumniators of Paul, against whose false accusations he would have
to justify himself. He was under no necessity by such inconsistency to
testify against himself.
TAUL AT JERUSALEM. 303
principle, that no one should relinquish the national and civil
relations in which he stood at his conversion, unless for
important reasons ; and on this principle he allowed the Jews
to retain their peculiarities, among which was the observance
of the Mosaic law; 1 Cor. vii. 18. But it could not fail to
happen, that those who entered into the Pauline ideas of the
relation of the law to the gospel, and were thereby freed from
scrupulosity in the observance of the former, were led into a
freer line of conduct in this respect, and some might go
further than Paul wished in the indulgence of their inclina
tions. Such instances as these might have given occasion to
the charge that he had seduced the Jewish Christians to
release themselves from the law.1 As by this accusation, tho
1 Dr. Schneckenburger and Bauer think that the manner in which
this transaction is mentioned in the Acts, is an important confirmation
of their views of the whole history. The mode of acting here ascribed
to Paul, appears to them totally irreconcilable with the principles he
lays down in his epistles. According to Schneckenhurger, the Act*
would be a confused, partial representation of a real transaction, sketched
according to a subjective point of view lying at its basis ; according to
Bauer, it would be an entirely false narration. Either (in the opinion
of the latter) the historical credibility of the Acts must be given up, or
the character of Paul must stand in an unfavourable light. I will here
cite Bauer's words: "If it were really so, as the author of the Acts
represents the fact, that the apostle, as ^uAcurcrwf .rbv vopov, became the
object of an intensely vehement persecution, with what right can wo
oppose the language of the apostle to all who think they can defend the
perfect historic credibility of the Acts in Gal. v. 11, fyo> 5e, a.$t\(pol, tl
irepLTOfji^v tn KTjpiWw, tri trt 8i<f>KOfj.ai ; &pa Kar-fjpyrji'ai rb (TKavSa\ov rov
o-raupoD, and the same apostle, who in Gal. v. 3 declares in so solemn
a tone, p.aprvpop.a.1 8e ird\iv vavrl avQpurca TreptTf/j.vofjLft/u, Srt o^eiAeTT/?
tartv '6\ov rbv v6fj.ov Tronjcrat, (therefore must place his whole trust in the
law, and expect salvation from it alone,) must according to the Acts
(xxi. 23) have consentad to an act which represented him as a <pv\d<r-
(r<av rov VO/JLOV, and bore public testimony that, so far from abrogating
the law, he was rather a teacher of it, who taught as much as others
thia universal obligation of the Mosaic law with all its ordinances,
and especially that of circumcision (xxi. 23). That in Acts xxi. 21,
only the 'lovSatot /caret TO $6rri are spoken of makes not the least
difference. Had the apostle also wished to give up nothing respect
ing the continual validity of the law, only among the Jews whom
he sought to convert to Christianity, as he practically declared in
Acts xxi. 26, compared with 23, with what untruth would he have
expressed himself to the Galatians ! " But I cannot perceive the
alleged contradiction between this mode of acting and the principles
expressed by Paul. Such a contradiction appears only when they are
separated, and not viewed in connexion with his whole style of thinking.
304: PAUL AT JERUSALEM.
conduct of Paul would be presented in a false light, and since
he was far from being such an enemy to Judaism as his
In all those passages in which he so emphatically speaks against circum
cision and the observance of the ceremonial law, everything is referred
to the standing-point of those who were Gentiles by birth, among whom
nothing of the kind was founded in their historical development, or in
their national institutions. It was not circumcision in itself, it was
not the observance of the Mosaic ritual in itself, which he so strenuously
opposed. He never attached so much importance to outward things
either negatively or positively ; these he always declared were in them
selves indifferent, and impressively said that neither circumcision
availed anything, nor uncircumcision, but that all depended on the
new creation, which must be effected equally in the circumcised and
imcircumcised by the Spirit of Christ; Gal. vi. 15. It was the same
thing whether a man lived as a Jew or a Gentile, provided, under these
different forms of national culture, he was actuated by the same spirit
of faith in Jesus as the Saviour working by love ; Gal. v. 6. As that
which he considered of most importance in life as the principle of the
new Christian creation was only this one thing, so that which he BO
strenuously combated was only that one thing which stood in oppo
sition to this principle, and exactly as far as it was thus in opposition.
But among Gentile Christians, the outward act or rite, and the prin
ciple on which it rested, the reason for practising it, were alike nuga
tory ; it was something contradictory to their national character, — it
was the introduction of a foreign element into the course of their reli
gious development, — and they could be brought to submit to such a
burdensome ceremonial, only on the supposition that it had a favourable
influence on their relation to God. It is therefore evident, that the
principles which Paul expressed on the outward observance of the
Mosaic law in reference to Gentile Christians, were totally inapplicable
to Jewish Christians. The sense of the words in Gal. v. 11, is, if Paul
now, as an apostle (as formerly from his Pharisaic standing-point),
taught that no one could obtain salvation without circumcision, — that
the Gentiles, in order to be admitted to the privileges of the Messianic
kingdom, must submit to circumcision, — then the Jews would have no
reason for persecuting him ; his object would be the same as that of the
Jewish proselyte-makers, to convert all men to Judaism. The doctrine
of Jesus the Crucified was so obnoxious to the Jews, because they were
compelled by it to renounce all their self-righteousness, everything in
which they seemed to take precedence of the Gentiles. If it were
admitted that the Gentiles must first become Jews, in order to be on an
equality with the Jews as citizens of the kingdom of God, this stone of
offence would be taken away. But if Paul allowed the Jews to continue
in their outward manner of life as Jews, and in this respect acted him
self like a Jew, this was something very different from TrepiTo^v /ojpvo--
fffiv in the former sense. According to the Pauline doctrine, the
position that, equally for Jews and Gentiles, men are freed by Christ
from the yoke of the law, is constantly valid. This refers to the internal
relation to the law, and the position of the religious consciousness to it.
PAUL'S vow AT JERUSALEM. 305
adversaries wished him to appear, he declared himself to bo
ready, as James proposed, to refute that charge by an overt
act, by taking part in the Jewish cultus in a mode which was
highly esteemed by pious Jews. l He joined himself to four
members of the church, who had undertaken a Nazarite's vow
for seven days. He submitted to the same restraints, and
intimated to the priests that he would be answerable for the
expense of the offerings that were to be presented on the
accomplishment of the purification. 2 But though he might
But notwithstanding this truth, the Jewish Christians might retain the
outward observance of the law. Has not Paul himself, in 1 Cor. vii.
18 — 20, plainly expressed the principle] the Jews after their conversion
are to continue Jews ; Christianity requires no one to make a change
in these outward things, on which the essence of religion does not de
pend. When he says in 1 Cor. ix. 20, that to the Jews he became a
Jew, that he appeared as one subject to the law, can this have any other
sense than that among the Jews he lived as a Jew, so that if any one
looked only at what was external, he must have supposed that Paul was
still subject to the yoke of the law, still held it to be binding ] Must
we not, from what he here asserts of himself, conclude with certainty,
though we had no historical data, that he acted in several instances
exactly as we find described in the Acts ] But it may be said, If Paul
took a' part in the observance of such a Nazarite's vow, he thereby prac
tically santioned the notion, that it was something acceptable m itself
to God, and conducive to salvation. If this had been the case, such
practices must have been recommended to the Gentile Christians in
general as well-pleasing to God. But as Paul, under all circumstances,
expressed the same principle, that by the works of the law no one can.
be justified before God, — as he always insisted that the Gentile Chris
tians, though they observed none of these things, ought to be acknow
ledged as members of the kingdom of God on an equality with the
Jews, — as those who desired him to practise such an outward observance
of Jewish rites, agreed with him in his leading principle, — he sufficiently
guarded himself against the false conclusion which might have been
deduced from a misapprehension of his conduct. Those who merely ob
served externally the different conduct of the apostles among the Jews
and Gentiles, must indeed believe that they had detected an incon
sistency ; and we have already noticed what imputations were cast upon
him by his adversaries on this account. Indeed, when James says of
Paul "that he walked orderly and kept the law," Acts xxi. 24, we must
understand it with the necessary limitation, that the same Paul had no
scruple to live among the Gentiles as a Gentile. But the author of the
Acts reports only single facts ; we findnotan assumption of consecutive-
ness and comprehensiveness in his history, but a want of these qualities
altogether in his apostolic memoirs.
1 Josephus, Archaeol. xix. 6, § 1.
2 The common supposition that Paul joined himself to these Naza-
rcnes, when they had yet seven days, Acts xxi. 27, to continue their
VOL. I. X
306 PAUL'S ARREST AT JERUSALEM.
have satisfied by this means the minds of the better disposed
among the Jewish Christians, the inveterate zealots among
the Jews were not at all conciliated. l On the contrary, they
were only more incensed, that the man who, as they said, had
everywhere taught the Gentiles to blaspheme the people of
God, the law and the temple, had ventured to take a part in
the Jewish cultus. They had seen a Gentile Christian,
Trophimus, in company with him, and hence the fanatics
concluded that he had taken a Gentile with him into the
temple and denied it. A violent tumult instantly arose, and
Paul was rescued from the enraged multitude only by means
of the Eoman tribune, who hastened to the spot with a band
of soldiers from the ATX Antonia situated over against the
temple, the quarters of the Eoman garrison.
Paul was on the point of being scourged, (a common mode
of torture among the Romans,) for the purpose of extorting
a confession respecting the cause of this tumult, but by
declaring himself a Roman citizen he was saved from this
ignominy. The tribune now endeavoured to ascertain the
facts of the case, that he might send Paul to appear before
the Sanhedrim. The manner in which the apostle conducted
himself on this occasion, shows him to have been a man who
knew how to control the agitation of his feelings by a sober
abstinence for the discharge of their vow, and that during this time he
kept the vow with them, is at variance with the mention of twelve days,
Acts xxiv. 11, for in that case there must have been seventeen days. It
is indeed in itself possible, that Paul did not reckon the five days which
he spent in confinement at Csesarea, since they signified nothing for his
object ; but it does not appear so from his own words. There remains,
therefore, nothing else but to assume, that the seven days denote a definite
number of days, to which at that time the ]S"azarites' vow used to ex
tend, and that Paul had joined the ISTazarites on one of the last of these
days. But, on the other hand, in the section of the Mishnah on the
Nazarites' vow, the number of thirty days is mentioned as the fixed
term for this oath. As to the seven days mentioned in Numbers vi.,
they are not applicable to the present case ; for they refer to the case of
a person who, during the time of his vow, has defiled himself, and who,
after the interval of seven days' purification, begins his vow afresh.
1 I find no reason for assuming with Bauer, that the machinations
against Paul proceeded chiefly from the Jewish Christians, and to charge
the author of the Acts with falsifying a matter of fact. But I consider
it possible that, among the great multitude of Jewish Christians, some
might be found to whom their Judaism was more important than the
little Christianity they possessed, and that such persons would make
•common cause with the Jewish zealots against Paul.
PAUL'S AKKEST AT JERUSALEM. 307
judgment, ana to avail himself of circumstances with Chris
tian prudence, without any compromise of truth. "When he
was suddenly carried away by the impulse of righteous indig
nation to speak with greater warmth than he intended, he
was able to recover the mastery of his feelings, and to act in a
manner becoming his vocation. In a moment of excitement
at the arbitrary conduct of the high priest Ananias, while
thinking only of the person and "losing sight of the office
whose duties had been violated, he had used intemperate
expressions though containing truth ; but on being informed
that it was the high priest whom he had so addressed, he at
once corrected himself and said, he had not considered the
dignity of the person he had thus addressed, to whom
reverence was due according to the law. ' In order to
secure the voice of the majority among his judges, he availed
himself of that means for the victory of truth, which has
often been used against it— the divide et impera in a good
sense; he enlisted on his side the bias for that truth by the
acknowledgment of which the greater number of his judges
really approached nearer to him, than the few who denied it,
in order to produce a division in the assembly. He could
say with truth, that he was brought to trial because he had
testified of the hope of Israel, and of the resurrection of the
dead, for he had preached Jesus as the personage by whom
this hope was fulfilled. These words had the effect of uniting
the Pharisees present in his favour, and of involving them in
a warm debate with the Sadducees, to whom the high priest
himself belonged. The former could find no fault in him.
If he had said that the spirit of a deceased person or that an
angel had appeared to him — (the appearance of the risen
Jesus) — whatever he might mean by this, and whether what
he averred were true or not, they did not pretend to deter
mine, nor trouble themselves about it; — at all events, they
could not criminate him on this account. 2 The tribune of
the Roman cohort at last saw himself obliged, by the plots of
1 If we are not disposed to think of the meaning of y5w, Acts
xxiii. 5, in the language which probably Paul used on this occ
Aramaic, the meaning which J?T may well have ; yet it is plain from the
circumstances under which he said this, that he could not, m the strict
sense of the word, affirm that he did not know him.
2 The words rf efopax&nfv, Acts xxiii. 9, are certainly a gloss, and
a gloss at variance with the general tenor of the passage, for this was
308 PAUL SENT TO C^ESAREA.
Paul's enemies against his life, to send him under an escort to
the metropolis of the province Caesarea, and to transfer the
affair to the Procurator Felix, who resided there.
The accusation which the Sanhedrim by their counsel were
allowed to bring against him, was the only one which, accord
ing to the privileges secured to the Jews by the Roman laws,
could with any show of reason be made, namely, that he
everywhere disturbed the Jews in the enjoyment of these
privileges, the peaceful exercise of their cultus, — that he
excited disturbances and divisions among them, and that at
last he had dared to desecrate the temple. The tribune was
accused of preventing the Jews from judging Paul according*
to the privileges secured to them by law. Felix, who was
not disposed to meddle with the internal disputes of the Jews,
perceived no fault in the accused, and hence would at once
have set him at liberty, if he had not hoped, as it was his
practice to make justice venal, to obtain money from him ;
but as Paul was not willing to purchase his freedom by such
an unlawful method, which would cast suspicion both on
himself and his cause, Felix, in order to gain favour with the
Jews on leaving them, to whom he had been sufficiently
obnoxious, left him in confinement, and thus he remained
for two years till the arrival of the new Procurator, M.
Porcius Festus.1
certainly more than the Pharisees could be willing to say from their
standing-point.
1 If the precise time at which Felix was recalled, and Festus received
the government of the province, could be exactly determined, we should
liave an important chronological mark ; but this period cannot be so
exactly determined. The chronological data on which we here proceed,
are the following. When Felix laid down the procuratorship, he was
accused at Rome, as Josephus (Archceol. xx. 8, § 9) relates, by the Jews,
on account of the oppressions he had practised, and would have been
punished if he had not been delivered by the intercession of his brother
Pallas, who at that time had much influence with the emperor. But
Pallas was poisoned by Nero in the year 62, see Tacit. Annal. xiv. 65.
This enables us to fix the extreme terminus a quo of the recal of Felix.
But according to the narrative of Tacitus, Pallas had long before lost his
influence, (Annal. xiii. 14.) At the beginning of his reign, Nero had
removed Pallas from the office he held under Claudius, and treated him
with displeasure. And since Josephus says that when Palias interceded
for his brother Felix he stood in favour with the emperor, it follows,
that the recal of Felix must have taken place in the beginning of Nero's
reign, which can by no means be admitted. _.What Josephns says in the
PAUL SENT TO C2ESAREA. 309
Paul had fur a long time previous to this event enter
tained the thought of preaching the gospel in tl\e metropolis
of the world. But it was now uncertain whether he would
ever attain the fulfilment of this inward call ; but on the
night after he had borne testimony to his faith before the
assembled Sanhedrim, the Lord imparted the assurance to
him by a vision, that as he had been his witness in the capital
of the Jewish world, he should also be the same in that of the
Gentile world. It was this which confirmed him in his reso
lution, when the procurator was about to sacrifice him to the
wishes of the Jewish Sanhedrim, of seeking deliverance by an
appeal to the emperor. The arrival at Csesarea of the young
King Agrippa II., as a person acquainted with the Jews and
their religion, was acceptable to Festus, since he hoped that
by admitting Paul to an examination in his presence, he
could learn something more decisive in this affair, which
might be communicated in his report to Rome. Paul ap
peared before so numerous and august an assembly, before
the Iloman procurator and the Jewish king, with exultation
at the thought of being able to testify of what filled his heart
before such an audience. He addressed himself especially to
King Agrippa, in whom, as a professor of the Jewish faith, he
history of his life, of his own journey to Komc in his six-and-twentieth
year, gives no sure foundation for determining the time when Felix laid
downing office. Schvader thinks indeed, that he can find a certain
chronological mark in this, that something which Josephus puts in
connexion with the entrance of Pestus into office, was decided by the
influence of Poppoea, already married to Nero, (Joseph. Archceol. xx. 8,
§ 1) : for it would follow that since Nero, according to Tacitus, married
Popprca in 62, Festus must have entered on his government about this
time. But the words of Josephus, xiv. 60, Kara rbv naipov rovrov, cannot
avail for exactly determining the time ; Poppoea, long before her
marriage to Nero, had great influence over him, as appears from the
word* of Tacitus, Annal. xiv. 60, " Ea diri pellex et adultcri Neronis,
rnox mariti potens," and had already accomplished much by interceding
with the emperor. We need not attach much weight to the circum
stance that Josephus calls her at that time the wife of Nero. But in all
this much uncertainty attaches to the chronology of events, and the
supposition that Felix laid down his office in the year 62, and therefore
that Paul's confinement took place in 60, is by no means sufficiently-
proved. We may therefore safely place it some years earlier. If Paul
was s^t at liberty from his confinement at Rome, we must necessarily
admit the earlier date ; for if his confinement at Home had been con
temporaneous with the great conflagration, he would certainly have
fallen a sacrifice to the fury then excited against the Christians.
310 PAULS DEFENCE AT OESAREA. »
hoped to find more points of connexion than in a heathen
magistrate. He narrated how he had been educated in
zealous attachment to Pharisaic principles, and from a violent
persecutor had, by a call from the Lord himself, become
a devoted preacher of the gospel, — that in obeying this call
up to that time he had testified before Jews and Gentiles,
great and small, but had published nothing else than what
Moses and the Prophets had foretold, that the Messiah should
suffer, that he should rise from the dead, and by the
assurance of an everlasting divine life diffuse light among
Jews and Gentiles. This he might presume was admitted by
the king as an acknowledged article of faith, but it must
appear utterly strange to the Komans ; strange also must the
religious inspiration with which Paul uttered all this appear
to the cold-hearted Roman statesman. He could see nothing
in it but enthusiastic delusion. " Too much Jewish learn
ing," he exclaimed, " hath made thee mad." But with calm
confidence Paul replied, " I am not mad, but speak the words
of truth and soberness!" and, turning to Agrippa, he called
upon him as a witness, since he well knew that these things
were not done in a corner of the earth, in secret, but pub
licly at Jerusalem. And with a firm conviction, that in
all he had testified the promises of the prophets were fulfilled,
he said toj the king, " Believest thou the prophets 1 I know
that thou believest !" Agrippa, offended by Paul's confidence,
answered, "Truly in a short time1 thou wilt make me a
Christian." Paul, with his 'fetters on his arm, was conscious
of possessing more than all the glory of the world, uttered the
noble words, " Yes, I pray God that in a longer or a shorter
time, he would make not only thee, 0 king, but all who hear
me to-day, what I now am, except these bonds 1 "
1 I understand the words <=V o\iyca (Acts xxvi. 28) in the only sense
which they can have according to the usus loquendi and Paul's answer.
The interpretation adopted by Meyer and some others is indeed pos
sible, but appears to me not so natural. If the reading of the Cod.
Alex, and of the Vulgate, which Lachmann approves, be adopted,
ev ij.eya\<a, in Paul's answer, the words of Agrippa must be thus
explained, " With a little, or with few reasons (which will not cost you
much trouble) you think of making me a Christian " — and the answer
of Paul will be, Whether with great or with little — for many or
few reasons, I pray God, &c. But I cannot make up my mind to
receive as correct this reading, which may be explained as a gloss, and
is not supported by very preponderating authorities.
PAUL AND THE JEWS AT ROME. 311
As the king and the procurator after this examination
could not find Paul guilty of any offence punishable by the
laws, the procurator would probably have set him at liberty,
if after his appeal to Caesar it had not been necessary for the
matter to take its legal course ; yet the report (elogium) with
which he would be sent to Rome, could not be otherwise than
in his favour. The centurion to whom he was committed
with other prisoners in order to be taken to Rome, certainly
corroborated the impression of this favourable report by the
account he gave of Paul's conduct during his long and dan
gerous voyage. Hence he met at Rome with more indulgent
treatment than the other prisoners : he was allowed to hire a
private dwelling in which only one soldier attended him as
a guard, to whom he was fastened by a chain on the arm (the
usual mode of the custodia militaris), and could receive all
who were disposed to visit him, and write letters.
As he had cause to fear that the Jews dwelling at Rome
had received from Jerusalem a report inimical to his cha
racter, and regarded him as an accuser of his people, he
endeavoured speedily to remove this unfavourable impression.
Accordingly, three days after his arrival, he invited the
principal persons among them to visit him. It proved that
no report to Paul's prejudice had yet reached them, if it be
allowed that they spoke the truth. It also appeared from
the statements of these respectable Jews, that they had heard
little or nothing of the Christian church which existed in the
same city with themselves. Nor is this inconceivable, if we
only consider the immense size of the metropolis, and the
vast confluence of human beings it contained, and if to this
we add, that the main body of that church consisted of'
Gentiles, and that these wealthy Jews busied themselves
far more about other objects than about the concerns of
religion. Yet it by no means appears from the statements of
the Jews that they had scarcely heard of a Christian church
existing at Rome, but only that they had not taken any
pains to acquire an accurate knowledge of it. They knew
indeed that this new sect met everywhere with opponents,
and hence it might be inferred that they had heard of the
controversies which had been carried on at Rome about
it, for the "everywhere" (vavTa-xpv), in Acts xxviii. 22,
includes (certainly does not exclude) a reference to what was
312 PAUL AND THE JEWS AT ROME.
going on at Rome itself, and we must not forget that only the
substance of what the Jews said is handed down to us.1 As
they heard much of the opposition excited against this
new sect, but nothing precise respecting their doctrines,
they were well pleased that Paul proposed to give them an
address on the subject. But here, as everywhere else, Paul's
preaching found more acceptance with the Gentiles than with
the Jews.2
1 I cannot find any foundation for the contradiction which Dr.
Bauer, in his treatises so often quoted, thinks he has detected between
this narration in the Acts, and the existence of such a church at Koine,
which we must suppose according to Paul's Epistle to the Romans.
2 The position developed and advocated with equal acuteness and
learning by H. Bottger in the second part of his Beitrage zur histo-
risck-kritischen Einleitung in die paulinisclien Brief e, Gottingen, 1837,
— that Paul was a prisoner only for the first three or five days after his
arrival in Rome, that he then obtained his freedom, and lived for two
years in a hired house, quite at liberty ; — this position, if it were true,
would cast a new light on Paul's history during this period; for it would
then appear that all those Epistles, which evidently were written during
some one imprisonment, could not have been written at Rome or during
his first confinement there. But the narrative in the Acts is directly
opposed to this supposition. I cannot understand Acts xxviii. 16,
otherwise than that permission was then granted to Paul to reside in a
private house, the same which is designated in v. 23, his lodging,
£evta, and in v. 30, as eV iSla p.icrBdofj.ari, " his own hired house." It
cannot be imagined, that if, after three days, so important an alteration
had taken place in Paul's circumstances, Luke would not have men
tioned it, for the assertion that his readers must have supposed this of
themselves, from the known forms of Roman justice, cannot satisfy us.
Even if this could have been supposed, he would hardly have omitted
to point out in a few words so important a change in Paul's lot. But it
is not easily proved that such an inference could be drawn, from what
is known respecting the course of Roman justice at that time. The
manner also in which Luke expresses himself (Acts xxviii. 30, 31)
respecting Paul's residence for two years at Rome, certainly implies that
he had not then obtained his freedom, for we are merely told that he
preached the gospel in his own dwelling ; but it is not narrated that he
visited the synagogue or any place where the church met, for which
omission no other reason can be given, than that, although he
could receive any visit in his own residence, under the inspection
of his guard, he was not at liberty to go to whatever place he
chose ; and least of all, would a prisoner, whose cause was not
yet decided, have been permitted to attend these meetings of the
church, even if accompanied by his guard. Here, therefore, we have a
fact which cannot be explained, unless we admit the continued confine
ment of Paul. How likewise can it be imagined, that Paul, who wished
to visit the church at Rome only on his way, would have stayed
there for two years, where suitable measures had already been taken for
PAUL AT ROME. 313
With the confinement of Paul, a new and important era
commenced not only in his life and ministry, but also in tho
development of the churches founded by him, for in pro
portion as Christianity spread more widely, a number of
heterogeneous mental elements were brought into action,
many important phenomena became conspicuous, while the
divine word operated among them in an independent manner,
and they were deprived of the apostle's personal oversight
and guidance.
the continued propagation of Christianity, instead of travelling to
those regions of the West, \vhere nothing had yet been done for making
known the gospel] This is explicable only on the supposition, that he
remained so long a time at Rome under constraint.
According to the account in the Acts, we may receive it as an esta
blished fact, that Paul lived two years in Home as a prisoner,— a fact which
can be overturned by nothing that we know of the course of Koman
iustice in the case of such appeals ; even without waiting to examine
how both could be reconciled to one another.
Meanwhile, from what is known of the legal processes in the time of-
the first Caesars, it can by no means be proved, what is in the highest
degree improbable, that all the causes which, in consequence of an appeal,
were brought to Home for decision, were decided in the course of five or
ten days. It was one thing to decide on theadmissibility of the appeal,
and another thing to decide on the point of law respecting which the
appeal was made. My respected colleague, Professor KudoriF, who has
had the goodness to make me a written communication on this subject,
concludes with the statement, that the term of five or ten days related*
not to the duration of the judicial proceedings, but to the lodging of the
appeal, and to the apostoli (= liter as dimissorice), that it gave no pre
scription relative to the term of the transaction itself, and that the
accused remained under arrest till the decision of the emperor. Thus,
in the Sentential Receptce of Julius Paulus, lib. v. tit. 34. it is said ex
pressly of the apostoli, " Quorum postulatio et acceptio intra quintum
diem ex officio facienda est." In a law enacted by the Emperor Con
stant ine in 314, according to which we are not justified in determining
the legal process in the times of the first Civsars, is the express provision
that the appellator should be free from arrest only in causce ciinles, but
of criminates causce it is said, " In quibus, etiamsi possunt provocare,
cum tamen staturn debent obtinere, ut post provocationcm in custodia
i/erseverent." Cod. Theodos. lib. xi. tit. 30, c. 2.
314 PAUL'S FIRST CONFINEMENT AT ROME.
CHAPTER IX.
PAUL DURING HIS FIRST CONFINEMENT AT ROME, AND THE DEVELOPMENT
DURING THE SAME PERIOD OF THE CHURCHES PREVIOUSLY FOUNDED BY
HIM.
IN examining this portion of Paul's history, we must fix
Our attention on three principal points ; his relation to the
Roman state, — to the Church at Rome, — and to the Churches
in other parts.
With respect to the first, the main thing to be considered
is, from what point of view the charge under which he was
detained as a prisoner is to be viewed ? Christianity was not
yet denounced as a religio illicita, therefore Paul could not,
like the later teachers of Christianity, be accused of violating
the laws of the state, on account of his exertions in pro
pagating this religion. Christians appeared only as a sect
proceeding from Judaism, who were accused by Paul's Jewish
adversaries of adulterating the original doctrines of their
religion ; so that at Rome no attention was paid to dis
putes that merely concerned the religious institutions of the
Jews. This charge against Paul might therefore be con
sidered as altogether foreign to Roman judicature, and he
would soon regain his liberty ; in this manner, the affair
would soon be brought to a close ; but it cannot be shown,
that it would be viewed under this aspect, the most favour
able for the apostle. The Jews might accuse him as being
a disturber of the public peace, who interfered with the
privileges guaranteed to them by the Roman government, as
their advocate Tertullus had already attempted to prove.
Hence an additional allegation might be made, which from
the standing-point of the Roman law would tend much more
to Paul's injury — that he had caused among other Roman
subjects and citizens in the provinces, and in Rome itself,
movements which were detrimental to the good order of the
state ; that he had tempted them to apostatize from the state
religion, by propagating a religion at variance with the
ancient Roman institutions, in which religion and politics were
PAUL AT ROIIE. 315
intimately blended.1 If the church at Rome, consisting mainly
of Gentile Christians, gave the impression in its wholo appear
ance of being unjewish, in short, a genus terlium ; this view
of Paul's conduct would be formed so much the more easily.
The existence of this new religious sect in the capital, would
be made an object of public attention by the proceedings
against Paul. We may suppose, that his fanatical and artful
adversaries among the Jews would leave no artifice untried to
set his conduct in the worst possible light to the Roman
authorities. Thus the investigation of his cause, with the
accusation and defence, might be protracted, and his prospects
might by turns become favourable or unfavourable. During
the first period of his residence at Rome he underwent no
public examination.2 His situation justified the most favour
able expectations, and he proposed when set at liberty, before
he extended his sphere of labour towards the West, according
to the plan he had previously formed, to visit Lesser Asia,
where his personal exertions seemed to be very necessary to
counteract many influences that were operating injuriously
on the churches. He intimated to the overseer of the church
at Colossce, Philemon, that he intended to take up his abodo
with him.
At a later period3 of his imprisonment, when he
already undergone a public examination, he had no such
favourable prospect before him; the thought of martyrdom
became familiar to his mind, yet the expectation of being
released from confinement was predominant, so that he wrote
to the church at Philippi that he hoped to come to them
soon. But if the view we have taken of the origin and
* The point of view as a Roman statesman from which Cicero formed
his model of law. " Separatim nemo habessit Deos neve novos siye
advenas, nisi publice ailscitos privatim colunto. Situs families
patrumque servanto" Cicero de Legibus ; and in the Commentaries,
c. x., against the covfusio religionum, which arose from the introduc
tion of foreign new religions. This was the point of view from which
a Tacitus and the Younger Pliny formed their judgment of Christi-
^ Whether this term embraced the whole of the first two years of his
confinement we cannot with certainty determine, for the silence of Luk
in the Acts is not a sufficient proof that, during the whole ot t
period, there was nothing memorable to be narrated respecting tl
situation of the apostle.
3 As appears from his Epistle to the Philippians.
SI 6 PAUL AT ROME.
original constitution of the church at Rome be correct, a
close connexion and intimate communion may be presumed
to have existed between its members and the individual whom
they might regard mediately as their spiritual father, and
whose peculiar form of doctrine prevailed among them. Now
if the epistles which Paul wrote during his first confinement
at Rome bore evidence against such a supposition, they might
also be adduced against our views. If these epistles make us
acquainted with any difference existing between the Roman
church and Paul, this fact would be very decisive, and we
should be forced to conclude that a strongly marked Judaizing
element predominated in that church. But the Roman
Christians had already, even before he arrived at Rome,
evinced their sympathy, since several of their number tra
velled a day's journey, as far as the small town of Forum
Appii, and some a shorter distance to the place called Tres
Tabernce, in order to meet him. In the Epistle to the Phi-
lippians he sends salutation from the whole church (7ru»'-fc
ol d'ytoi) which is a proof of the close connexion in which he
stood with them. As to his giving special salutations from
the Christians in the service of the imperial palace (the
Ccesariani), we are not to infer that these persons were more
in unison with him than the rest of the church, but rather
that they were better acquainted, and on more intimate
terms with the church at Philippi. At all events, it is an
arbitrary supposition that these Gentile Christians were those
who, in distinction from the rest of the church, consisting of
Jewish Christians, were in closer connexion with Paul. ' It
might indeed be expected, that if these Ccesariani were more
allied by their Gentile origin to the church at Philippi, he
would have mentioned this circumstance as the reason for
presenting their special salutations. It is not at all incon
sistent with this view, if these epistles contain undeniable
marks, that in the Roman church Judaizers were found
hostile to Paul, and who occasioned him much vexation ; for
we ourselves have pointed out a Judaizing tendency in a
smaller part of this church sufficient to account for such an
appearance. As the Gentile Christians who advocated the
Pauline principles, now found so important a support in his
1 See Schneckenburger, p. 123.
PAUL AT ROME.
personal presence, and cooperated with him in publishing the
gospel among the Gentiles, the opposition of the Judaizinglmti-
pauline party must have been excited by it and rendered still
more violent. The whole tone of the Epistle to the Philip-
pians testifies of the conflicts he sustained in his intercourse
with the Judaizers. His excited feelings cannot be mistaken ;
his displeasure was called forth by anxiety for the purity of
the gospel against those who, where the soul appeared in a
fit state for receiving the gospel, sought to take advantage of
it for gaining adherents for their Jewish ceremonies and doc
trine of meritorious works. And Paul himself distinguishes
those among the Roman Christians who, with1 friendly feel
ings towards himself, were active in cooperating with him
for the spread of the gospel, from those who, animated with
iealousy at his success, endeavoured to form a party against
• him, and to "add affliction to his bonds," Philip, i. 15-LlS;
and among the Jewish Christians he could only point out
two who laboured with him for the kingdom of God, and con
tributed to his comfort ; Col. iv. 1 1 .
During his confinement, anxiety for the extension of the
kingdom of God, and for the prosperity of the churches he
had founded, occupied him for more than the care of his
personal welfare. As all persons had free access to him, he
thus enjoyed opportunities for preaching the gospel. By the
soldiers who relieved one another in standing guard over
him, it became known among their comrades, (among the
cohortes prcetoriance, in the castra prcetoria, in the prceto-
rium;) and hence to a wider extent in the city, that he was
put in confinement, not on account of any civil offence, but
for his zeal on behalf of the new religion ; and this tended to
promote it, since a cause for which its advocate sacrificed
everything was certain of attracting attention. By his
example also many of the Roman Christians were roused to
publish the truth zealously and boldly. But while some co
operated with Paul in a oneness of heart and mind, others
came forward who belonged to the antipauline Judaizing
party, in opposition to his method of publishing the gospel
The manner in which he expresses himself respecting these
his opponents is worthy of notice on two accounts. We here
see a man who could entirely forget his own person when the
cause of his Lord was concerned,— who could even rejoice in
318 PAUL AT ROME.
what bore an unfriendly aspect towards himself, if it con
tributed to promote the cause of Christ. We perceive how
far his zeal for the truth and against error was from all
selfish contractedness ; with what freedom of spirit he was
able to pass a judgment on all doctrinal differences. Even in
the erroneous views of these Judaizers he acknowledged the
truth that lay at their basis; and when he compared the
errors propagated by them, with the fundamental truth which
they announced at the same time, it was still a cause of joy
to him that this fundamental truth was becoming more
generally known, that in every way, whether in pretence (by
those who in their hearts preferred Judaism to Christianity,)
or with an upright intention, Christ was preached, Phil. i. 1 8.
For even by these persons the knowledge of the facts on.
which the gospel rested was spread to a greater extent ; and
where faith in Jesus as the Messiah, the Founder and King of
the kingdom of God, was once produced, on this foundation a
superstructure could be raised of more correct and extended
instruction. But from this we learn what is of service for
explaining later appearances in the history of the Roman
church, that in connexion with the lessons of the Pauline
theology the germ of a Judaizing tendency was implanted in
this church.
The concerns of the churches in Lesser Asia first occupied
Paul's attention in his imprisonment. T ;He had received an
1 The supposition on which we here proceed, that Paul wrote the
Epistles to the Colossians, the lEphesians, and Philemon, during this
confinement at Rome, has found in later times strenuous opponents in
Schulz and Schott, to whom must be added Bottger; but the arguments
advanced by them against it do not appear to me adapted to overthrow
the opinion hitherto most generally held, though no demonstrative
proof can be given in its favour, since Paul does not exactly state the
circumstances under which he wrote. What he says of the opportu
nities presented for announcing the gospel, agrees very well with what
we know of his confinement at Rome, from the hints given in the Acts
and in the Epistle to the Philippians. (The latter indeed cannot be
urged against Bottger, for he supposes that epistle to be written Avhile
Paul was confined at Csesarea.) It does not appear to me surprising,
that a runaway slave from Colossse should betake himself at once to
Rome ; for the constant intercourse with the capital of the empire
would easily furnish him with an opportunity, and he might hope for
greater security from the distance and the immense population of the
metropolis. Nor is it at all strange, that a teacher of the church at Co-
lossse should be induced, by the dangers that threatened pure Christi-
THE FALSE TEACHERS AT COLOSSI. 319
exact account of their situations from an eminent individual
belonging to the church of Colossal, Epaphras, the founder of
that and of the neighbouring Christian communities. He
visited Paul at Rome, and gave practical proofs of his sym
pathy, ! and through him the apostle learnt how many things
which had happened in their church during his absence
required to be promptly counteracted.
During the preceding year, a new influence emanating from
Judaism had been developed in those regions; — an influence
with which Christianity had hitherto not come in contact,
but which now threatened to mingle with it, and to endanger
its purity and simplicity. It might be expected that Chris
tianity on its first spread among the Jews, would chiefly come
in contact with the Pharisaic mode of thinking which was
then predominant. Hence the first false teachers, with whom
anity there, to travel as far as Rome in order to consult the apostle and
to solicit his assistance; though we cannot determine with certainty
whether other personal concerns also brought Epaphras to Rome.
Neither can the fact that Paul, when at Rome, desired a lodging to be
in readiness for him at Colossae, determine anything ; for though he
had at an earlier period formed the intention to travel first into Spain,
yet, as we have already remarked, he might be induced, by the infor
mation respecting the changes in the churches of Lesser Asia, to alter
his plan. Nor is it otherwise than natural, that, during his confinement
at Rome, he should collect around him younger men, who at other times
had been used to serve as companions and fellow-labom'ers in his mi-
nistrv, and that he should now make use of them in order to maintain
with the distant churches, of whose situation he could receive informa
tion through various channels at Rome, a living connexion adapted to
their necessities.
1 It is remarkable that Paul, in the Epistle to Philemon, calls this
Epaphras his " fellow-prisoner in Christ Jesus" As he thus dis
tinguishes him from his other fellow-labourers, we may conclude that it
could be affirmed only of Epaphras. Since the judicial inquiry instituted
against Paul would have attracted the attention of the Roman magis
trates to the new religious party that were opposed to the religion of
the state, it may be assumed that this led to the apprehension of Lpa-
phras, who had laboured so zealously on behalf of this cause in Lesser
Asia. But it is against this opinion, that he is not mentioned with thi:
epithet in the Epistle to the Colossians, unless we suppose that the
apprehension of Epaphras did not occur till after that epistle was
written. Still it is fair to suppose, that he was distinguished by this
epithet to Philemon only as a faithful companion of the apostle in his
confinement ; as on the other hand he is distinguished by another
epithet in the epistle to the whole church at Colossae ; and this title of
honour (6 0W;0H*Mr4i /*ow) is applied in the same epistle to Anstar-
chus, who had accompanied the apostle in his confinement
320 THE FALSE TEACHERS AT COLOSS.E.
Paul had hitherto been so often in conflict, had attempted a
mixture of Pharisaic Judaism with Christianity. But now,
after Christianity had spread further among the Jews, and
had attracted the attention of ihose who lived in greater
retirement, and troubled themselves little about the novelties
of the day, its influence affected sects that had long existed
among the Jews of a theosophic-ascetic character, such as that
of the Essenes. 1 Persons of such a tendency must have felt
themselves attracted, still more than Jews of the common
Pharisaical bias, by what Christianity presented that was
suited to the internal religious sentiment ; only they were
too much entangled in their mystical-ascetic bias, so opposite
to the free practical spirit of the gospel, and in their spiritual
pride, to be able to appropriate the gospel simply and purely
with a renunciation of the preeminence of a higher religious
philosophy, which they fancied themselves to possess, and of
a higher practical perfection in their modes of abstinence.
1 Storr's opinion that the Jewish Christian sect at Colossas was
derived immediately from the Essenes, who yet can be regarded only as
one manifestation of this general mental tendency, is not supported by
sufficient evidence. Yet it is not a decisive objection against it, that
the Essenes had not spread themselves beyond Palestine, and showed
no inclination for proselytism ; for by the influence of Christianity,
it is very possible that the original character of such a sect might
be somewhat modified. And I would by no means adduce against it,
what is said in the Epistle to the Colossians, not merely of the practi
cally ascetic, but also of the theosophic tendency of this sect (their
<t>t\ocro<t>la), since we cannot trust what Philo says of the Essenes as the
ideal of practical philosophers. See my Church History, vol. i. p. 58.
But although in this epistle some marks may be found which suit the
Esseues, as, for instance, what is said of abstinence, of chastising,
the body, of the observance of the ceremonial law, of the reverence
paid to angels, &c. ; yet all this is too general, not to suit many other
similar manifestations, arising from the same mental tendency, and
on the other hand, we find nothing which marks the whole peculiar
character of the Essenes. As a proof how much a propensity to bring
themselves with angelology was spread among the Jews, we may notice
the words in the K-fjpvyfj.a Tlfrpov, in which it is said, /njSe Kara 'lov-
Saiovs o"f'j8e<r0e, Kal yap cKeivot oi6/j.evoi TOV Qtov yivuiffKeiv OVK eiriffTavTai,
\arpfvovTes ayyeXois Kal apx^yy^ois. See Clement. Stromata, vi. 635.
Grabe, Spicileg. i. 64. If also an intention was contained in these
•words to indicate a subordinate place to Judaism as a religious system
communicated by angels (the idea which at a later period was formed by
the gnostics), the doctrine in vogue among the Jews concerning angels,
and their connexion with them, might serve as a point of connexion for
this censure.
THE FALSE* TEACHERS AT COLOSSvE. 321
They must have been rather tempted to remodel Christianity
according to their former ideas and tendencies, and to cast it
into a theosophic form of their own. We here sec a tendency,
first germinating in the circle of Judaism, from which, in the
following century, manifold branches proceeded of a gnosti
cism that corrupted the simple gospel. Paul had probably
cause, from his experience during his long sojourn in Lesser
Asia, to apprehend the springing up of a tendency so injurious
to the gospel, and hence we may account for his warnings
addressed to the presbyters of the Ephesian church. His ap
prehensions were now verified. Jewish false teachers of this
tendency had made their way into the church at Colossse.
What distinguished them from the common pharisaically-
minded Jewish Christians was this, — that they did not begin
with recommending to the Gentiles the observance of Jewish
ceremonies, as indispensable for justification and sanctifica-
tion, and for obtaining eternal happiness. Had they pro
ceeded in this manner, they would in all probability not have
found an entrance so easily into churches consisting purely of
Gentile Christians. But they boasted of the knowledge of a
higher wisdom transmitted by tradition among the initiated;1
they pretended to a higher knowledge of the spiritual world,
to stand in a closer connexion with it, and that they could
communicate it to those who were disposed to be initiated
into their mysteries. With this theoretical tendency they
joined a strict ascetism in practice, which was probably in
close connexion with their theosophic principles, and had its
foundation in their notions of matter, as the source and
principle of evil; and thus also many particulars in their
rules for abstaining from certain things, which it would be
injurious to touch or taste,«may be referred not simply to the
Jewish laws respecting food, but to their peculiar theoretic
doctrines.
The histoiy of religion acquaints ns with a twofold ten
dency of mysticism; one that adheres to the prevailing
cultus, and professes to disclose its higher meaning : another
1 Perhaps they used the term <j>i\offo(pia, since this appellation,
in consequence of the mixture of Oriental and Grecian ideas at this
time, might be used as well as the word yvwais, afterwards employed
among the Jewish theosophic sects to designate their pretended
mysteries.
VOL. I. Y
322 THE TWOFOLD TENDENCY OF MYSTICISM.
that wears a hostile aspect towards it, and entirely despises
•what is external and historical in religion. This contrariety
had already made its appearance in the Jewish philosophical
religion at Alexandria. Among the Jews in that place, a
class of religious Idealists had been formed, who, viewing the
historical and the literal in religion only as the covering or
vehicle of general ideas, drew the inference that the attain
ment of perfection depended on holding fast those ideas,
while all besides was abandoned to the childish multitude
who were incapable of higher conceptions, and satisfied with
the outward husk of sensible objects. l Philo, in whom we
have an example of the first tendency, combats, although
agreeing with them in the principles of allegorical interpreta
tion, those despisers of the letter ; while he taught that it
was possible only by spiritual intuition to penetrate into the
true internal meaning of religion, and to know those mysteries
of which outward Judaism presented the symbols. But he
also taught, that in proportion to the conscientious reverence
with which the external was contemplated, would be the
progress through divine illumination in the examination of
the internal. This last tendency we must suppose to exist in
the sect of which we are now speaking.
In however slight a degree a party of common Judaizers
would have been dangerous to the church at Colossal, yet
Judaism under this modification would be far more dangerous
for many. For the people of that age who were filled with
anxiety for a communication with heaven, and for the inves
tigation of the invisible, stretching beyond the limits of
earthly existence, the promise of a higher knowledge that to
a certain extent would release them from the thraldom of the
senses, was very seducing. Such anxious inquiries had led
many an individual to Christianity, which, while it brought
them to a consciousness of the real wants of their religious
and moral nature, for which it guaranteed the relief, commu
nicated on this side another tendency to their minds ; but
toe fore it had thoroughly penetrated their life and thoughts, it
might easily happen that such illusions, falling in with a
previous and only partially conquered tendency, would deceive
1 Thus characterised by Philo : of rouy pyrovs v6fj.ovs av^oXa vor\rSiv
•3rpay/j.dT(i)v vTroha.fj.pd.vovTes, TO. jJikv &yafijKpi^w(rav, T&V 8e pu.6vj.
prjaav. See his work, De Migrations Abrahami, p. 16.
THE FALSE TEACHERS AT COLOSS.E. 323
them by the dazzling appearance of something higher than
what was offered them in the simple and ever practical
doctrine of the apostles. Moreover, in a country like Phrygia,
where a propensity for the mystical and magical was always
rife, as was evident from the forms of religion peculiar to the
country, the worship of Cybele, and afterwards Montanism,1
such a tendency would be peculiarly dangerous to Chris
tianity.
Paul describes the higher philosophy of religion of which
these people boasted, as the following of human traditions, 2
as a cleaving to the elements3 of the world, and not pro
ceeding from Christ, He objects to the preachers of this
doctrine, that they did not adhere to Christ as the head.
From this it has been incorrectly inferred by many, that
these persons were in no sense Christians. But the main
point in Paul's disapproval of them is this, that their doctrine,
although connected with Christianity, was in contradiction to
its spirit and nature, — that although they acknowledged
Jesus as the Christ, and therefore as their Lord and Head,
yet the spirit and tendency of their doctrine were at variance
with this acknowledgment, since they did not, in accordance
with it, set out from their relation to him in their striving
after a knowledge of divine things, and make him their
central point. In fact, it is only on the supposition that they
professed to attach themselves to the Christian faith, that this
disapproval retains its full significance.
It would indeed be possible so to explain the relation of
these persons to Christianity,4 that they did not come forward
in direct hostility against it, but yet ascribed it only a subor
dinate importance in their religious development — that they
1 Compare Bb'hmer's Isagoge in Epistolam ad Coloss., p. 9.
2 Not proceeding from what the Spirit of God had revealed.
3 The (rroixe«* TOV K6ffp.ov, in Col. ii. 8, and other passages, are not to
be understood, it appears to me, as is commonly explained, of the rudi-
inenta religionis, both in Judaism and Heathenism ; but a comparison
of all the Pauline passages, and the Pauline association of ideas, seems
to favour our understanding the phrase of the elements of the world in
a peculiar sense, as denoting the earthly, elsewhere termed TO. (rapKiitd.
Hence ii. 20, o-Totx*"* TOU K6fffj.ov and K6ff/j.os may be considered as
synonymous.
4 This view has been recently developed with much skill and acute-
ness by Dr. Schneckenburger, in his work on the Baptism of Proselytes.
See also his Beitrage zur Einleitung iris Ncue Testament, p. 146.
324 THE FALSE TEACHERS AT COLOSSI.
acknowledged Christ only as the prophet of the heathen world,
which hitherto had known nothing of the true God, and attri
buted to the religion revealed by him only a subordinate
value for the religious culture of the heathen.1 They perhaps
taught that by their connexion with the hidden supreme
God which was effected through Judaism, they were raised
above the revelations of the Mediator, the Logos, and thus
above Christianity, and thereby obtained the power to employ
higher spirits themselves in their service.2 According to this
1 Among the Jewish theologian:-, there were those who had borrowed
from the Platonic philosophy the doctrine of the constellations, as Qeol
aiffQ-nrol ; and accordingly explained the passage in Dent. iv. 19, as
meaning that God had left the adoration of the heavenly bodies as a
subordinate religious standing-point to other nations, but had revealed
himself only to the Jews. This view might afterwards be further
modified, that God had given the Logos or Jesus to the heathen
as their teacher and governor, but that the knowledge and worship of
the Supreme God was only to be found among the Jews. Since Justin
Martyr, in his Dialogue with Trypho, in what he represents these
Jewish theologians as saying, has put into Trypho's mouth what
they were at that time in the habit of saying, we may consider him as
expressing their views, when he brings in Trypho as saying ; 6<rro> v/j.uv
4£ %Qv(i)v Kvpios Kal Qeos yvcapi^ofj-evos, ais alypxfyal (nw.a.ivova'iv, oinvts Kai
a?r5 TOV ovA^a-Tos avrov Xpurnavol KaXelaQai irdvres iffj^Ketrt •tyu.eTs Sero?
6eov KCU aurbz/ TOVTQViroi'f]G'a.VTOs Aarpeural OVTGS, uv Sec^aeOa Tr/so/.toAo'yias
O.VTOV, oiiSe TTJS •n-poova/i/TJcrecoy. The doctrine of the Clementines also may
be here compared. According to this work, Christianity contained in
a form of revelation designed for heathens, the same as original
Judaism purified from foreign admixtures, so that he who adhered to
Jesus alone, as well as he who adhered to Moses alone, could attain to a
participation of the kingdom of God, provided the latter did not trans
gress by blaspheming Christ, and the former by blaspheming Moses.
If a Jew, with a greater partiality for Judaism, contemplated Chris
tianity, yet the same fundamental principle could easily be so modified,
that genuine Judaism would appear more valuable than that form
of revelation which was specially intended for the Gentiles.
2 This idea was always to be found among the gnostics of the second
century, and meets us in the Indian religious systems, and in Buddhism,
that men, by communion with the Supreme original being, obtained
power to make use of inferior spirits for their own ends, and that
in this manner wonderful things could be accomplished by their aid.
Here the contrast which Philo makes between the uioTs TOV \6yov and the-
viols TOV OVTOS may be applied, only modified, otherwise than in Philo;
for the Alexandrian theologians of Philo's school attached no import
ance to the connexion with angels, since they comprised everything in
the contact of the spirit with God himself, and the contemplation
of ideas. In the sect here spoken of, the oriental-theosophic rather
than the Grecian-philosophic element of Philo's theology is prominent.
THE FALSE TEACHERS AT COLOSSI. 325
view, we may suppose that these persons, from the standing-
point of a pretended spiritual conception of Judaism, had
formed the same judgment respecting the subordinate standing-
point of Christianity, as many of the later gnostics from the
standing-point of a spiritualised Christianity were accustomed
to pass on Judaism as the religion of the Demiurgos.
But although such a conception of the peculiarities of this
sect is possible, yet it is by no means sufficiently supported by
the marks which are deducible from Paul's argumentation.
Had they sought actually to seduce from Christianity those
among whom they found entrance, Paul would have marked
this much more strongly. His reasonings indeed, as they are
carried on in this epistle, would apply to those persons who,
though engaged in no immediate and open opposition to
Christianity, yet assigned to it a subordinate place j ' but the
peculiar manner in which he argues by no means justifies us
in concluding that they are the direct object of his censure.
Since he reproves these persons for their reverence of angels,
it follows that they placed themselves in a subordinate rela
tion to angels, and hence certainly to the Logos, a being
exalted above all angels (the opxdyyeXoc). Had they main
tained that by an immediate connexion with the hidden God,
they could exalt themselves above the Logos and his revela
tion, Paul would without doubt have expressed, in direct
opposition to this doctrine, the fundamental principle, that
men can enter into connexion with the Father only through
the Logos. He makes use, it is true, of this principle, but in
reference to a different object of debate. ,,
In that Judaizing sect which here came into conflict with
the simple apostolic doctrine, we see the germ of the Judaizing
gnosticism. Thong] i the account given by Epiphanius of the
conflict between Cerinthus and the apostle Paul is not worthy
of credit, yet at least between the tendency which Paul here '
combats and the tendency of Cerinthus the greatest agreement
is found to exist, and, judging by internal marks, we may con
sider the sect here spoken of to be allied to the Corinthian.
It is remarkable that, to a late period, traces of such a
Judaizing angelological tendency were to be found in those
parts, for at the council of Laodicea canons were framed
1 Sclmeckenburger has developed this view in his late essay on this
subject.
326 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
against a Judaizing observance of the Sabbath, and a species
of angelolatry,1 and even in the ninth century we find a
kindred sect, the Athinganians.2
In the example of Paul we recognise the peculiar character
of the apostolic mode of refuting error, and how it differs from
that of later times. While this busies itself with the con
futation of particular errors, Paul, on the contrary, seized the
root of the doctrine in its peculiar religious fundamental
tendency from which all the particular errors proceeded, and
opposed to it the spirit of the gospel. This method was rather
positive than negative. Thus he repressed the boasting of a
pretended superior wisdom, and of a delusive acquaintance
with spirits, without setting himself to oppose eacli separate
particular, by exhibiting a truth that marks the central point
of Christianity ; that by communion with Christ alone, we
receive all the fulness of the divine life ; by him alone we are
introduced into the kingdom of God, and we belong to that
same kingdom to which all higher spirits belong, by union
with him as the common head of the whole ; in him we have
all things which are needed for the development of the in
ternal life, and hence we need no other Mediator. For the
purpose of combating a painful superstition, which represented
this and the other object as polluting and offensive, and
recommended various charms or amulets for warding off the
influence of evil spirits,3 he appealed to the facts of Christian
consciousness ; that Christians were redeemed from the power
1 Can. XX. on ov Se? Xpicniavois lovSa'ifeiv Kal eu ry <ra/3y3aTip crxoAafeii/.
Can. xvi. ordains ez/ ffafifidrca evayyf\ia pera fTtpcav ypa<pwv (the Old
Testament) ai/ay^o-weo-flai. Can xxxv. on ov Se? Xpianavovs eyKaraXeitreiv
T^V e/c/cA-Tjo-mv rov 0eoD /cat a.~yy€\ovs ovoud^eiv /cat atn/a|eis (meetings for
paying reverence to angels). The following canon is also worthy of notice,
as indicating the predominant and peculiar mental tendency, on ov Set
iepariKovs r) K\-rjpiKovs /j-dyovs •/) ^TraoiSous eli/at •?) /j.a6r)p.anKOvs '/) avrpoXoyovs
^ Trote?!/ TO. \fy6im.fva </>uAa/cTfyua. Theodoret says, in his commentary on
this epistle (ii. 18), that this superstition for "a long time maintained
itself in Phrygia and Pisidia, and that in his day, oratories were to be
found in this and the neighbouring districts dedicated to the Archangel
Michael.
2 See my Church History. Part vii. p. 545 ; part viii. p. 660.
3 With the doctrine of various orders of angels, this sect combined
the doctrine of various orders of evil spirits. These evil spirits were
considered especially connected with matter (Tn/euyuara v\ucd). By
sensuality, and especially by the enjoyment of certain kinds of
food, men were especially exposed to their influence ; and by chasten-
THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOS&IANS. 327
of evil and, in communion with Christ, were certain of their
triumph over all the powers of darkness— that as their inner
life was exalted above the reach of earthly things, to which
they were dead with Christ as it already belonged to heaven,
with whom they were incorporated through Christ, so it ought
to be altogether carried out of the reach of a religion cleaving
to the senses ; nor ought Christians to allow this their li
thus exalted to heaven and rooted in communion with God,
to be dragged down to the elements of the world, to sensible
earthly things.—- See to it," said the apostle, « that no one
robs you of your Christian freedom, that no one trepans you
as his prey by the worthless deceitful appearance of a pre
tended higher wisdom which follows human traditions, cleaves
to the elements of the world, and proceeds not from Christ.
Everything which does not proceed from him is delusion ; t<
the whole church of God, which belongs to him as his body,
exists in dependence on him ; and through him, who is
common head of all the powers of the spiritual world, are ye
also incorporated with that church, ye who before were as
Gentiles excluded from the development of Gods kingdom.
He has obtained for you the forgiveness of sins, and thus 1
also freed you from the law which testified against you as an
indictment, having blotted it out. By his sufferings, he has
triumphed over the whole kingdom of evil ; let none of you
therefore hazard becoming slaves again, and condemn your
selves on account of those outward things, all of which are
only shadows of what was to come; but in Christ we behold
the reality itself. May no one succeed in beguiling you in
reference to your highest interests (merely because it so pleases
him— for his own arbitrary pleasure), by the appearance of a
humility put on for show, by the worship of angels since ho
is disposed to pry into what is hidden from man '-
in<* the body, and abstaining from the indulgence of the senses,
men were withdrawn from these influences.
i In the passage, Col. ii. 18, that reading which omits the & has
much in it* favour, the authority of the most important 1™"™"^
and the comparison with the other reading OVK which may be con.id
as a similar doss It is also more easy to explain how the connexion
of the whole verse might occasion the interpolation of A*"***
than how it should occasion its rejection, by which it is 01 h made
more difficult. If this reading be adopted, we must understand the
SSage thus: "He pries into which (as he imagines) he has seen,
328 THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOMBIANS.
one, with all his appearance of humility and a spiritual life, is
puffed up with an ungodly mind, which places its confidence
in a nullity ; he can neither exalt himself above the world nor
to Christ, for he does not hold fast the head from which alone
the body, animated by it and held together by its influence in
all its members, can develop itself for the end designed by
God. How is it, if ye are dead with Christ to the things of
the world, that ye can adopt as if ye belonged to the world,
such maxims as, Touch not this, taste not that ; since all this,
according to the doctrine of these persons, will only by the
use tend to destruction ! Which doctrines certainly have an
appearance of wisdom in the arbitrarily invented worship of
God, the show of humility, and the chastening of the body ;
but yet things which have no real value, and only serve to
gratify an ungodly mind. If, therefore, ye are risen with
Christ, seek after that which is above : let your thoughts be
directed thither where Christ is, who is exalted to the right
hand of God : let your wishes be fixed on heaven." This
tendency towards heaven, this life rooted in God, was always
set in opposition by Paul to the superstition that would drag
down divine knowledge to the objects of sense.
This epistle was conveyed to the church at Colossa? by Ty-
chicus, one of the missionary assistants of Paul, who was
returning to Lesser Asia, his native country. But since
Paul could not furnish him with epistles for all the Asiatic
churches, and yet would gladly have testified his livel}- in
terest in all, and wished, as the apostle of the Gentiles, to
address a word to all collectively, he prepared a circular
letter designed for all the churches in that region. In this
the ?,ppcarances of angels — puffed up by the delusive linages, which
are only a, reflection of the sensuality that prevails OA7er him, of
his sensual earthly tendency to which he drags down the objects of
religion, the Invisible." And in tins case the contrast would be very
suitable ; he adheres not in faith to the invisible Head. But yet this
reading appears to me to have the connexion and the meaning of single
words too much against it tor me to admit it. The enPartveLv appears
to me too plainly to designate an impertinent eagerness to pry into
what is hidden from human sight, and to presuppose the negative (tuft ;
and if the apostle had wished to mark supposed appearances of angels,
he would certainly not have used twpaKfv without some further limita
tion, some additional phrase, with which the following el/o) might be
connected ; as, for example, by a cupantva.!. 5o/ce<, this vision, would have
been marked as deceptive and presumptuous.
THE EPISTLE TO TUE EPHESIANS. 329
epistle, in which the apostle of the Gentiles addressed him
self to all Gentile Christians as such, he treats only of one
great subject of general interest, the actual efficiency of the
gospel among the Gentiles, without entering upon other
topics.1 The similarity of the two epistles (the Epistle to the
Colossians and the so-called Epistle to the Ephesians) is of
such a kind, that we sec in it the work of the same author,
and not an imitation by another hand. Let us remember
that Paul, when he wrote this epistle, was still full of those
thoughts and contemplations which occupied his mind when
he wrote the Epistle to the Colossians ; thus we can account
for those points of resemblance in the second, which was
written immediately after the first. And hence it also is
evident, that of these two, the Epistle to the Colossians was
written first, for the apostle's thoughts there exhibit them
selves in their original formation and connexion, as they
were called forth by his opposition to that sect whose senti
ments and practices he combats in that epistle.2
Though this epistle lias come down to us in the manu
scripts, now extant, as addressed to the church at Ephesus,
yet the general character of the contents, suited to the wants
of the Asiatic Christians of Gentile descent, testifies, by the
absence of all special references to the peculiar circumstances
of the Ephesian church, against such an exclusive or pre
dominant appropriation of it. If this epistle had been designed
principally for the Ephesian church, Paul would certainly
have been impelled to say to those among whom he had
spent so long a time, many things relating solely to their
peculiar circumstances. This conclusion, which we draw
with certainty from the contents of the epistle, is confirmed
by the information that has come down to us from antiquity,
that the designation of the place in the introductory saluta
tion is wanting in ancient manuscripts. But since the Ephe-
1 It was so far a hnppy thought of Rchulz to describe this Epistle as
n companion to the Epistle to the Hebrews.
2 For the confirmation of this relation of the two epistles to one
another, the KU.\ in Eph. vi. 21 certainly serves, which can only be ex
plained by supposing that Paul had in his thought* what he had been
writing to the Colossians, iv. 8, according to the correct reading 'ivayy&Tf.
Harless has noticed this mark in the introduction to his Commentary
on the Epistle to the Ephesians, and after him Wiggers jun. in tho
Studien und Kritiken ; 1841, 2d part, p. 453.
330 THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.
sian church consisted for the most part of Gentile Christians,
we have no reason to doubt that this epistle was equally
designed for them, though being a circular letter, the apostle
touched only on those circumstances and wants which were
common to them with the other churches of this district. It
might also be thought most proper, that the epistle should be
sent from Ephesus, as the metropolis and the seat of the
mother-church, to the other churches. This would best
agree with the designation which it generally obtained at an
early period, as specially addressed to the Ephesian church.
Yet from this remark we do not venture to infer too much,
since the great preponderance of the Ephesian church, as one
of the sedes apostolicce, although the epistle at first might
have had no precise designation, must have procured a pre
dominant value to its name, as if of one directed to the
Ephesian church.1
In the second period of his confinement, Paul received
a contribution from the church at Philippi (who had already
given practical proof of their love for him) through Epaphro-
ditus, their messenger, from whom also he received an account
of their state. In consequence of this information, he had
occasion to put the Christians at Philippi on their guard
against the influence of Judaizing teachers, to exhort them to
union amongst themselves, and to recommend to those who
had more liberal and enlarged views, forbearance towards their
weaker brethren. On this last topic, he gives them, in the
words of the exhortation which he added at the close of the
epistle, the important rule, that all should seek to employ
faithfully the measure of knowledge which they had already
attained (iii. 15), that then God would reveal to them what
they still wanted, and thus all would by degrees arrive at
a state of Christian maturity.2 He exhorted them, under the
persecutions to which the Christians in Macedonia were still
1 The well-founded reaction against the negative assertions of an ar
bitrary scepticism, must not seduce us into a superstitious overvalua
tion of tradition, which in its turn may lead to mere arbitrary assertions,
instead of that result which offers itself from the comprehensive survey
of Christian antiquity.
2 The gloss of the common reading (KCLVOVI, TO avro <$>poveiv\ which
injures the meaning, arose from mistaking the sense of the passage,
and supposing that it referred to Christian unity, and not to the agree
ment of practice with knowledge.
PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 331
exposed, to bear joyfully their sufferings for Christ's sake, and
io view them as a gift of grace, which was vouchsafed to
them.
CHAPTER X.
PAUL'S LABOURS AFTER HIS RELEASE FROM HIS FIRST CONFINEMENT AT
ROME, TO HIS MARTYRDOM.
HITHERTO we have possessed certain information respecting
the circumstances and labours of the apostle Paul during his
confinement at Rome. But in reference to the sequel, we
meet on all sides with great obscurity and uncertainty. The
question arises, whether he ended this confinement with
martyrdom, or whether he was released from it, and entered
afresh on his apostolic labours. The decision of this question
depends partly 011 the depositions of historical witnesses,
partly on the result of an examination of Paul's Second
Epistle to Timothy, whether this epistle, which was evidently
written during a confinement at Rome, must be classed
among the epistles written in the time of his first confine-
ment,°or whether we must assume the existence of a second.
The narratives of the fourth century, according to which Paul
was set at liberty and published the gospel in Spain, cannot
be taken into account, for all these might very easily arise
from what he says in his Epistle to the Romans, of his inten
tions of visiting Spain. But more attention is due to an
account .which is given by a man who was in part a contem
porary, and probably a disciple of Paul. Clement, the
bishop of Rome, says expressly in his First Epistle to the
Corinthians, (§ o,)1 that Paul suffered martyrdom, after he
1 What we learn from the only natural interpretation of this passage
could not have occurred, if what Schenkel has remarked in his disser
tation against a second confinement of Paul (in the Stadien und
Kritiken, 1841, part 1), respecting Clement's Epistle, I
namely that it was written only a few years after the hpistle ot laul
to the Corinthians, between the years 64 and 65: hut wo cannot ei
tirely agree with this opinion. The inference from £ 41, where tli
author expresses himself as if the temple and temple-worship at Jer
332 PAUL S SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
had travelled to the boundaries of the West.1 By this ex
pression, we most naturally understand Spain ; and though
Clement might have understood by it some other place or
country than exactly this, yet we cannot in any case suppose,
that a person writing at Rome would intend by it that very
city.' From this account of Clement, if we must infer that
salem were still in existence, cannot countervail those passages of this
epistle which contain the most undeniable marks of a later period ; as
$ 44, on the election to church-offices ; § 47, where it is presupposed
that Paul wrote the First Epistle to the Corinthians at the beginning of
the publication (or of his publication) of the gospel (eV apxy rov
€ua77c-\iou). And it appears that the author knew nothing of any
epistle written to the Corinthians by Paul before our first epistle to
them. I also think that Clement would have expressed himself other
wise in § 5, if he had written only a few years after Paul's martyrdom.
The allusions to the Epistle to the' Hebrews also indicate a much later
date.
1 The /j.aprvps7v is in this connexion, fj.apTvp'r.<ras eirl T&V ^yov^vuv,
to be understood probably, not in the later meaning of martyrdom, but
in the original sense of bearing testimony to the faith, although Avith a
reference to the death of Paul, which was brought on by this confess! on.
" He bore testimony of his faith before the heathen magistrates." At
all events, the words CTT! T&V ^yov^iv^v must be understood as a
general designation of the heathen magistrates ; and we cannot suppose
that. Clement intended to give a preci.se chronological mark, or to refer
to the persons to whom at that time the management of public affairs
was committed in Rome.
2 Schrader, indeed, adopts Ernesti's opinion, that by Tfppariis Svcreas
may be meant the boundaries of the west towards the east, and thus
nothing else be intended than that Paul had ju*t reached as far as the
boundaries of the west. But though we are willing to allow that the
words might in themselves be so understood, yet it is impossible so to
understand them in this connexion. For Clement had just said that
Paul proclaimed the gospel in the east and in the west (/CT?PU| •ytv&fi.fvos
fv Trj avaToXy ical eV -rf, StVei), that he had taught righteousness to the
whole world\§iKa.ioavi>i}v Sz5a£as oXov TQV Kcxrpov), and then follow the
words eVl TO reppa r^s Svaeus IXB&v. In this connexion, Clement must
surely have intended to say that Paul advanced iar into the west. It
may "here be remarked, that Clement must have known more of the
events in general of Paul's life, fur he says that Paul was seven times
put in fetters. After what has been said since the publication of this
work against this interpretation and application of the passage in
Clement, I cannot prevail on myself to give it up; and I am pleased to
find critics like Credner, who hold the same views. How can it be ima
gined that Clement, if he thought only of Paul's first confinement at
ilome, could say that he had published the gospel not merely in the east
but also in the west, and had come even to the boundaries of the west ]
Even if we allow much for the rhetorical form of the expression, we
PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 333
Paul carried into effect his intention of travelling into Spain,
or that, at least, he went beyond Italy, we are also obliged to
admit, that he was released from his confinement at Rome.
And we must abide by this opinion, if we have no further
information of the circumstances of Paul during his second
confinement, if we also place his Second Epistle to Timothy
in the time of his first imprisonment.
If we depart from this last supposition, we can put two
cases ; either that Paul wrote this epistle at the beginning or
at the end of his confinement. As to the first case, we know,
that Paul came to Rome without Timothy, but that he was
afterwards in his society. It may be therefore supposed, that
he was called by this epistle from Lesser Asia to Rome, and
that from that time he remained constantly with him. But
the information furnished by this epistle, of Paul's situation
at that time, is entirely opposed to such a supposition. When
he wrote it, he had already obtained a public audience, and
had been heard in his defence. On the contrary, in the first
period of his confinement, this had certainly not happened,
since it is first mentioned in the Epistle to the Philippians.
He then had his martyrdom in prospect, while his First
Epistle during his confinement held out the most cheering
hopes of his release.
If we take the second case, and consider this epistle as the
last he wrote in that confinement at Rome, it will connect
itself with the Epistle to the Philippians, with respect to the
darker prospects of the apostle's situation, of which it con
tains several indications. But several other things do not
agree with this supposition, and rather direct us to another
date. And although not every particular which we could
mention on this point has equal weight, yet all taken toge
ther are in favour of that view, according to which all the
particulars can be most naturally and simply understood, in
the manner which would first occur to an unprejudiced reader
of the epistle. Paul desires Timothy to come to him, without
any allusions to his having been already with him during his
confinement. When we begin to read the epistle, everything
gives the impression, that he had taken leave of Timothy in
cannot consider this as a proper designation of such a fact ; and why
should a writer who had at hand so many rhetorical designations for the
metropolis of the world, have chosen one so unnatural as this?
334 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
the place where the latter was now residing, and since that
time had been put in confinement. He cautions him against
the false teachers in his neighbourhood (in Lesser Asia, pro
bably at Epbesus), ii. 17, and speaks of them as if he had
himself the opportunity of knowing them from personal obser
vation. This could not have been during his earlier residence
in Lesser Asia, for at that time these heretical tendencies had
not yet shown themselves, as appears from what we have
before remarked ; but everything is easily explained if Paul,
being released from confinement, travelled into Lesser Asia,
as he intended, and entered into conflict with these false
teachers, who had gained a footing there daring his absence.
He informed Timothy of the result of his first public examina
tion, iv. 1 6, and in a manner which implies that Timothy knew
nothing before of it, and that it had taken place during his
absence from Rome. But when Paul made his defence dur
ing his first confinement Timothy was with him ; (compare
Philip, i. 7.) We are therefore led to think of something
that happened during Paul's second confinement. There are,
besides, many marks which indicate that he had come to the
West by his usual route from Lesser Asia through Achaia,
but which we know was not his route when he last came from
Csesarea to Jerusalem. He charges Timothy to bring with
him the cloak, the books, and especially the parchments,
which he had left behind at the house of a person whose name
he mentions. Now it is far more probable that he left these
things behind after a visit to Troas some months before, than
at a distance of four or six years, which we must suppose
to have been the case, if the epistle was written during his
first confinement, and that they should not be brought to him
till after so long an interval.1 In order to depict his state of
desertion, he informs him that Erastus, one of his usual com
panions, who probably was with him the last time in Lesser
Asia,2 stayed behind in his native place Corinth ; and that he
had left another of his companions, Trophimus, sick at Mile-
1 It is an arbitrary assumption that these parchments contained
documents relative to his defence, and that for that reason he -wished to
have them.
2 See Acts xix. 22. This could hardly be the same as the olitov6/j.os
of Corinth, mentioned in Rom. xvi. 23, for his office would scarcely
allow of his being so often with Paul on his missionary journeys.
PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 335
turn.1 Although we find several persons in Paul's society,
who were also with him during his first confinement (though
this circumstance will not serve to fix the date, since the same
causes as at that time might bring him again into his
society) ; yet among these is a Titus, who was not with him
before, for we have not met with them together since the
apostle's last sojourn in Macedonia and Achaia, and a Crescens,
who is not named before as one of his companions.
Against the opinion that this epistle, according to the
marks we have indicated, was written in Paul's second con
finement, it may indeed be objected, that we find in it no
reference to an earlier confinement at Rome. But tin's will
appear less strange, if we attend to the following considera
tions. By this epistle to Timothy, the apostle by no means
intended to give the first information of his new confinement;
he rather assumes, that this, and in part the peculiarities of
his condition in it, were already known to him, as appears
from i. 15,2 and by means of the constant intercourse between
1 On the supposition that the epistle might have been written during
Paul's first confinement, it is the most natural supposition that such,
persons are here spoken of who had resolved to come to Rome (as
Timothy knew), to the apostle's assistance on his trial, according to the
usages of Roman law. One of them, Erastus, had not left Corinth as he
intended, but remained there. Trophimus (who as a witness might
have been of great service) they (the delegates of the churches in Lesser
Asia who had agreed to travel together to Rome) had left behind sick
at Miletum (Snrt\mov, the third person plural). But certainly the other
interpretation, in which nothing needs to be supplied, is the simplest,
and that which would first occur to an unprejudiced reader of the epistle.
Besides, if Paul had reminded Timothy of something which must have
been known to him, in order to stir him up still more to set off without
delay to Rome, (as Timothy, who was probably staying at Ephesus,
must have known that the delegates from the churches had left Tro
phimus sick in his neighbourhood,) he would have added some such
word as olSas, to signify that he was merely reminding him of somft-
thing he knew already. We may also doubt Avhether the testimony of
Trophimus was of so much consequence to Paul. The charge of raising
a tumult at Jerusalem would probably not be so dangerous to him ; on
the contrary, he was most probably justified sufficiently on his arrival at
Rome by the statements that were sent at the same time from the
Roman authorities, whose inquiries had hitherto led to a favourable
result. But that charge of having prompted among Roman citizens to
apostatize from the state religion, and propagated a rcligio nova et
illicita, must have been really dangerous, and in this case Trophimus
could be of no assistance to him.
31 This passage may be most naturally understood of a number of
338 PAUL'S RELEASE.
the chief cities of the Roman Empire, and the lively interest
taken by the churches in Paul's affairs, information respecting
him must soon have reached Ephesus. Moreover, during
this period after his release, so many things occurred in his
renewed apostolic labours, which fully occupied the mind of
one who was more affected by events relating to the kingdom
of God than by any personal considerations, and pushed into
the background the recollection of his former confinement ;
and in the prospect of martyrdom, he would fix his thoughts
more on the future than on the past, especially in reference
to events that were likely to affect the progress of the king
dom of God 011 earth.
JSfow if \ve admit that Paul was released from that confine
ment, we must assume that he regained his freedom before
the persecution against the Christians occasioned by the con
flagration at Rome in the year 64 ; for had he been a prisoner
at this time, he would certainly have not been spared. And
it agrees with the chronological data which we have before
discovered, that after more than a two years' imprisonment, he
regained his freedom between the years 62 and 63, a result of
the proceedings against him which in itself, and in connexion
with existing circumstances, is by no means improbable. The
accusation of raising a tumult at Jerusalem had been proved
to be unfounded ; but the opposition of Christianity to the
State-religion had not then attracted public attention, and
though this fact could not have passed altogether unnoticed,
yet no definite law existed on the subject, and under the
Emperor Nero, who ridiculed the established religion, and
gave himself little concern about the ancient Roman enact
ments, such a point might more easily be waved. The friends
whom Paul had gained by his behaviour during his confine
ment, and by the manner of conducting his defence, would
probably exert their influence in his favour. Thus he might
regain his freedom ; and the ancient tradition that he was
beheaded, ' and not crucified like Peter, if true, favours his not
having suffered death in the persecution of 64; for had he
Christians from Lesser Asia, who, on coming to Rome, were afraid to
visit Paul in his confinement, and whom he met with in Lesser Asia
when he wrote this epistle. Paul marks the persons to whom he alluded
by specifying two of their number.
1 See Eusebius, ii. 25.
PAUL'S RELEASE. 337
been put to death in that persecution, so much regard would
not have been paid to his Roman citizenship as to spare the
hated leader of a detested sect from the more painful and
ignominious mode of execution.
From the epistles written by Paul during his first confine
ment, we learn that he laboured much at Home in publishing
the gospel ; his firm advocacy of the cause of God, and his
happy release, must have had a beneficial influence in this
respect. Hence it came to pass, that Christianity from this
time spread with still greater power among the Gentiles in
Rome. But owing to the same cause, the new sect, while
gaining ground among the heathen to the injury of idolatry,
drew on itself the attention of the fanatical people who could
not feel otherwise than hostile to the enemies of their gods ;
and the hatred thus excited soon occasioned the report to be
spread of unnatural crimes committed in the assemblies of
these impious persons. Perhaps also the Jews, who were
more embittered against the Christians when their designs
against Paul proved abortive, contributed their part to excite
the popular hatred against them. But a persecution on the
part of the state would hardly have been threatened so soon,
if the Emperor Nero had not availed himself of the popular
feeling, which easily credited everything bad of the Christians,
in order to cast an odium on the Christians which he wished
to throw off from himself.1 Yet it by no means appears that
this outbreak against the Christians in Rome was followed by
a general persecution against them throughout the provinces,
and hence Paul might meanwhile continue his apostolic
labours without molestation in distant parts.
As for the history of his labours in this new field, we have
no information respecting it ; nor can the total want of sources
for this part of church history be at all surprising. But this
defect of information cannot be made use of to render doubtful
the fact of Paul's second confinement. Nothing, therefore,
is left for us, but to compare the short account (already
mentioned) in the Epistle of Clemens Romanus, with what
Paul himself tells us respecting his intentions in case he
regained his freedom, in the epistles written during his first
confinement, and with what may be gathered from his other
1 On this persecution in Rome, see my Church History, vol. i. part 1,
p. 136; and part 3, p. 239.
VOL. I. Z
338 PAUL'S LABOURS AFTER HIS RELEASE.
letters, which it seems probable that he wrote after his
release.
Before his confinement, Paul had expressed the intention of
going into Spain, and the testimony of the Roman Clement
favours the belief that he fulfilled this intention. But during
his confinement at Rome he had altered his views, and was
determined, by reasons which we have already noticed, to visit
once more the scene of his early labours in Lesser Asia. The
Second Epistle to Timothy contains hints of his returning by
his usual route through Achaia. But it would be possible
that after his release he travelled first into Spain ; that he there
exerted himself in the establishment of Christian churches,
and then revisited the former sphere of his ministry ; that he
was on his return to the West, in order to close there his
apostolic commission, but before he could reach his destination
was detained and executed at Rome. — However, the want of
any memorial of his labours in Spain, the want of any record
of an ecclesia apostolica, does not favour the supposition that
Paul spent any length of time in that country ; and hence the
other explanation, that he first renewed his labours in the
East, then betook himself to Spain, and soon after his arrival
was beheaded, seems to deserve the preference.
We, therefore, are of opinion that Paul first fulfilled his
intention of returning to Lesser Asia. Now the First Epistle
of Paul to Timothy and the Epistle to Titus, by the peculiar
ities of their mode of expression, and the peculiar references to
ecclesiastical relations, connect themselves so closely with the
Second Epistle to Timothy, and exhibit so many marks of the
later apostolic age (one of which we have already noticed), that
it appears reasonable to assign both these epistles to this
period.
In the earlier history of the apostle, we can find no point of
time in which he could have written such a letter to Timothy
at Ephesus, in reference to the concerns of that church, as his
first epistle ; J for this epistle presupposes a church already for
1 The genuineness of the First Epistle to Timothy being presupposed,
the view I have here taken of the relations and circumstances under
which it was written, appears to be the only tenable one. _ But I confess
that I am not convinced of the genuineness of the First Epistle to
Timothv, with the same certainty as of the Pauline origin of all the
other Pauline Epistles, and of the two other Pastoral Letters, and the
PAUL'S EPISTLES TO TIMOTHY AND TITUS. 339
some time in existence, which in many respects required a'
new organization of church relations, the displacing several of
the leading officers of the church, and the appointment of
others. The new class of false teachers who had sprung up in
Lesser Asia during Paul's imprisonment, had acquired great
influence in the Ephesian church. As Paul (according to an
interpretation not absolutely necessary of his farewell address
at Miletus) had anticipated, several overseers of the churches
had allowed themselves to be seduced by the spirit of false
doctrine. The false teachei^s to whom we refer bore the same
marks which we find in those who appeared in the church at
Colossse during Paul's confinement. They belonged to the
class of Judaizers, who maintained the perpetual obligation of
EpisHes to the Ephesians and the Colossians. What is said in this
epistle of the false teachers excites no suspicion in my mind ; and I cau
find nowhere the allusions to the later gnostic doctrines, which Bauer
•would find in this as well as in the Pastoral Letters, The germ of such
Judaizing gnosticifm, or of a Judaizing theosophie ascetic tendency, as
it shows itself in the two Epistles to Timothy, I would presuppose a
priori to be existing at this time, since the appearances of the second
century point back to such a tendency gradually evolving itself out of
Judaism. In this respect, the absence of the marks of a later date in the
controversial part of this epistle, is to me a proof of its high antiquity.
To the declaration of Hegesippus, in Eusebius, iii. 32, that the falsifica
tions of dcctrine first began alter the death of the apostle, or rather then
ventured to make their public appearance, I can attach no such weight
as historical evidence, as to cast a doubt on these undeniable facts. As
there is an unhistorical tendency produced by a dogmatic bias, which
transposes the originators of all heresies to the apostolic age, and
makes the apostles to be the first impugners of them ; so also there is a
more unhistorical tendency, and equally proceeding from a dogmatic
bias (as is the case with all the depositions of Hegesippus), whioh would
maintain that, up to a certain date, the church was wholly pure, and
that all heresies broke out first after the decease of the Apostles. A
common but one-sided truth lies at the bottom of both <;pi'nions. I can
find nothing surprising in the fact, that, in the twoEpisMes to Timothy,
such an aspect of the present as an omen and germ o- what would bo
developed in the future, is to be seen. The attentive 01 server, capable
of deeper insight, must here behold the future in the present. But I
cannot deny that, when I come from reading other P;iulinc epistles,
and especially the two other Pastoral Letters, to this epistle, I feel my
self struck by the impression of something not 1'auline. More particu
larly, the mode of transition appears to me not in the Pauline style, —
as in ii. 7; iii. 1 ; iii. 15; v. 17, 18; and the relation of this epistle to
the two other Pastoral Letters is also suspicious. I can indeed find
reasons for allaying these doubts, but none which, taken all together,
can satisfy the unprejudiced lover of truth.
340 PAUL'S FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
the Mosaic law.1 But they distinguished themselves from
the common Judaizers by a theosophic ascetic tendency. They
taught abstinence from certain kinds of food, and prescribed
celibacy as essential to Christian perfection.2 But they united
with this practical tendency a theoretical peculiarity. They
prided themselves on possessing a higher y vwaig (the ^tXoo-o^/a
of the Epistle to the Colossians), and by this they were
seduced from the simplicity of the faith. They taught legen
dary tales respecting the origin and propagation of spirits, like
the false teachers at Colossse.3 They brought forward subjects
which gave rise to subtle disputations, instead of leading men
to accept in faith the divine means of their salvation ; 1 Tim.
i. 4. The conflict with this false Gnosis now springing up,
must have occupied the churches in these parts. As the
prophets in the assemblies of believers frequently warned them
of the dangers which from the signs of the times they perceived
were threatening the church ; so these warning voices spoke
also of the conflict that awaited the church with this hostile
tendency, which in following ages was one of the severest
which the simple gospel had to encounter. These are the
express warnings of the Divine Spirit by the inspired ad
dresses in the churches, to which Paul appeals.4 To this
1 As appears from the Pauline antithesis, 1 Tim. i. 9.
2 Among the cu/jLaTiK^ yv^vaaia, 1 Tim. iv. 8, must without doubt
be included a devotion that consisted in outward gestures, abstinencies,
and ceremonies, the opposite of which is true piety, tvytfieia, having its
seat in the disposition.
z The genealogical investigations common among the Jews, by which
they sought to trace their descent from persons of note in former times
up to the Patriarchs, cannot certainly be intended in 1 Tim. i. 4, for
inquii-ies; of this sort could never be introduced among Gentiles, nor
could their minds be so much occupied with them, that an attention to
them should be set down among the marks of character. Nor can we
suppose a reference to inquiries respecting the genealogy of Jesus; what
has just been said would in part apply to this supposition, and in this
case Paul would have marked his meaning more precisely, and according
to his usual antithetical style, contrasted the Xpto-rbs Kara irvfvp.a Avith
the Xpivrbs Kara crapita. On the contrary, it will be quite suitable to
apply it to the 761/60X07105 TUV ayyeXuv, similar to the later gnostic
pneurnatologies ; on the supposition, indeed, that he wrote of them as
already well known to Timothy. Any other person who had forged
this epistle, partly for the purpose of employing the authority of Paul
against the rising gnosis, would have more exactly marked the object
of controversy.
4 1 Tim. iv. 1. A similar expression respecting prophetic intima
tions occurs ia Acts xx. 23.
PAUL IN CRETE. 341
peculiar state of the church several of the instructions are
applicable, which Paul gives in this epistle, relative to the
appointment of their overseers.1
Paul, therefore, executed his intention of going into Lesser
Asia, and found such disturbances in the churches there,
arising from the influence of the unevangelical tendency we
have noticed, that he held it to be absolutely necessary to
remain longer in those parts. He left Ephesus for reasons
unknown to us, to visit the churches of Macedonia, but soon
returned thither, and in the meanwhile left Timothy behind
for the special purpose of counterworking these false teachers,
which he considered an object of the first importance ; to
this he added a subordinate concern, the new organization
of the church at Ephesus, and perhaps also the superin
tendence of some others in the neighbourhood, which had
since been formed. 2
If we regard the geographical position of the places, it
agrees very well with Paul's residence in Lesser Asia, and his
travelling thence to Macedonia, that at this time he visited
the Island of Crete, and there left behind his disciple Titus,
to whom he addressed an epistle. It is indeed easy to ima-
1 From the difference in circumstances would arise the difference of
manner in which he expresses himself here and in the First Epistle to
the Corinthians respecting a single life. When he wrote to the Corin
thians, he opposed those who objected to a single life from the common
Jewish standing-point ; here he speaks against those who went so far iu
depreciating marriage as to condemn it altogether as unchristian. In
opposition to these persons, who led females to forget altogether the
proper destiny of their sex, and to thrust themselves forward as public
teachers, Paul says, 1 Tim. ii. 15, that the woman would always be
saved in family life (the Sia is to be understood in the sense of — by means
of, in — as it is often used by Paul), if she lead a holy life in faith and love.
2 That Paul does not mention in this epistle his deliverance from
confinement at Rome, proves nothing against this statement, for
a number of events had intervened to occupy his mind, especially when
he wrote this epistle. It is indeed surprising that he should charge
Timothy to " let no man despise his youth," since Timothy could be
no longer a youth. But we must recollect how indefinitely such terms
are often used, and that Paul, when he wrote this, might have special
reasons for such an injunction ; among the leaders of the unevangelical
party, there might be persons whose great age had secured for them
deference and respect. The passages in Titus ii. 15, and also 2 Tim. ii.
22, (which in that connexion has nothing strange,) present no fit
parallel ; and if. in the First, Epistle to Timothy, traces can be found of
an imitation of the two others, these words may be reckoned among the
number.
342 PAUL'S EPISTLE TO TITUS.
gine, that, as Paul had often sojourned for a longer time in
those parts, he had already founded several churches in Crete.
But besides that, for reasons before mentioned, we are led to
fix the date of this epistle nearer that of the two Pastoral
Letters, it is also striking that, while Luke in the Acts reports
so fully and circumstantially the occurrences of the apostle's
last voyage to Rome, and mentions his stay at Crete, he says
not a word (contrary to his usual practice in such cases) of
the friendly reception given to him by the Christians there,
or even of his meeting with them at all. Hence we may
conclude that no Christian churches yet existed in the island,
though that transient visit would naturally give rise to the
intention of planting the gospel there ; which he probably
fulfilled soon after he was set at liberty, when he came into
those parts. As in the last period before his journey to
Jerusalem we do not find Titus in his company, and on the
other hand we find, in the Second Epistle to Timothy, that
he was with the apostle, this agrees very well with the sup
position that Paul after his release once more met with him
in Lesser Asia, and again took him as his associate in preach
ing the gospel.
After Paul had laid the foundation of the Christian church ,
in Crete, he left Titus behind to complete the organization of
the churches, to confirm the new converts in purity of doc
trine, and to counterwork the influence of the false teachers.
If we. compare the marks of the false teachers in the two other
Pastoral Epistles with those in the Epistle to Titus, we shall
find a similarity. But if these do not induce us to admit —
(as we are not authorized to suppose the same appearances of
the religious spirit in Crete and in Ephesus) — so neither shall
we be led by what can be inferred simply from the epistle
itself, to imagine any other object of Paul's opposition and.
warning than the common Judaizing tendency, and an un-
spiritual pharisaic study of the Old Testament, disputatious,
cleaving to the letter and losing itself in useless hair-splittings
and rabbinical fables.1 Paul required of Titus to turn the
1 As to the genealogies in Titus iii. 9, if we compare this passage
with the endless genealogies in 1 Tim. i. 4, we shall be led to under
stand a reference to a theosophic element, an emanation doctrine ; but
this expression in the Epistle to Titus, without anything more definite,
and simply in its own connexion, favours no such supposition ; but we
PAUL'S EPISTLE TO TITUS.
attention of men to objects altogether different and of prac
tical advantage, deeply to impress on their minds the doctrine
which formed the basis of salvation, and to lead them to
apply this fundamental truth to real life, and to be zealous to
verify their faith by good works. l
shall be induced to think of the common Jewish genealogies, although
we cannot determine precisely for what object these would be employed,
and the comparison of 1 Tim. i. 4 with Titus iii. 9, might excite a
suspicion of a misunderstood copying in the former.
1 All that is said in opposition to this tendency bears the impress
being truly apostolic and Pauline. If the passage in Titus iii 10 were
to be understood in the sense of the later unchristian hatred of heretics,
the passage in iii. 2 would be in direct contradiction to it, for in this an
exactly opposite disposition is expressed; Christians are here warned of
spiritual pride, which might mislead them to exalt themselves
believers and children of God against the heathen, to treat them as
enemies, to insult them on account of their superstition and the v
prevalent amongst them. On the contrary, it was their duty to cherish
gentleness and kindness towards them, from the consciousness that they
like the heathen, were once the slaves of delusion and of sin, and owed
their deliverance from this state, not to their own merits, but to divine
grace alone. But the sentiment here expressed, if rightly understood,
by no means contradicts the injunction which Paul gives to Titus m
iii 10 In this latter passage, by those who bring in aips<r«s (Uil.
v Wa class of persons are referred to different from those in the
former such at least who went to greater lengths, separated iron
Christian fellowship on account of their peculiar opinions, and
open schisms. Now, Paul advised Titus to enter into no disputations
with persons who wished to make these schisms, respecting the pec
liarities to which they attached so much importance ; but it they uen
ftdbpOMd to listen to repeated admonitions, to avoid all further
intercourse with them, since such disputations could be of no advantage,
and tended onlv to injure the hearers, and throw their m.nds into a
state of perplexity. Such persons, whose errors were interwoven with
their whole character, were not to be convinced by argument. And
he reprobated their whole mental tendency in reference to rel.gion a:
unpractical, it followed, of course, that he admonished hi* dis^lo:
to en-ao-e with his adversaries on this standing-point, but if they would
not iSten to repeated exhortations to return to evangelical simplu
they should be left to themselves. In perfect accordance ; ^th t
injunction, is that which Paul gives Timothy m 2 Tim. n 23, to at on
« foolish and unlearned questions/' since they only engendered st
but "with meekness to instruct those that oppose themselves t
whether they might not be led to repent of their errow, and be • bro.^ lit
to an acknowledgment of the truth. Here also, as m the
Titu*, he forbids arsuing with these false teachers on their en.
opinions It was quite a different thing to point out the right way to
Ce opponents o? whose recovery some hopes might be entertained,
and to this class the first passage reiers.
344 PAUL'S SECOND CONFINEMENT AT ROME.
When Paul wrote this letter to Titus he had the prospect
or spending the winter at Nicopolis, where he wished Titus to
join him. As there were so many cities in different parts,
which, having been built on the occasion of some victory,
were called Nicopolis, and we have no exact information
respecting the travels of the apostle in this last period of his
ministry, and the exact dates are wanting, we cannot deter
mine what city is here intended, whether we are to look for
it in Cilicia, Macedonia, Thrace, or Epirus. We might sup
pose that the city built in the last-named country by Augustus
to commemorate the sea-fight at Actium was intended ; but
at all events, it appears from the plan of his journey indicated
in the Second Epistle to Timothy, that Paul was come from
Lesser Asia into the West, and that he had probably taken
farewell of his beloved Timothy at Ephesus.
As soon as he had returned to the West, he fulfilled his
purpose of publishing the gospel in Spain. But there he was
soon seized arid sent as a prisoner to Rome. l After he had
been in confinement a long time, and had been subjected to
one judicial examination, he wrote his last Epistle to Timothy,
whom (as we have just said) he probably had left behind at
Ephesus. His situation at this time was evidently very
different from that in which he found himself during his first
confinement after his examination. It was then universally
allowed that he was a prisoner not on account of any moral
or political offence, but only for publishing the gospel, and
his example gave many courage boldly to confess their faith.
But now he appeared in his fetters, as an "evil-doer," ii. 9, for
all Christians in Rome were considered as malefici. Only a
few had the courage openly to show themselves as his friends
and companions in the faith. Then he was in a state of :
uncertainty between the expectation of martyrdom and of
release, though the latter was more probable. Now, on the
1 It may indeed appear remarkable that Paul, during the last part of
Nero's reign, at a time when arbitrary cruelty so predominated, when
Christians were so much the object of public hatred, still enjoyed
so favourable a situation as a prisoner, so that he could see his friends
and write epistles. But the exact situation of prisoners depended
so much on accidental circumstances, that we cannot draw certain con
clusions respecting it merely from the general state of things. Some
Christians might, for aught we can tell, enjoy these privileges evea
amidst the most violent persecutions.
PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. 345
contrary, he looked forward to martyrdom as the more pro
bable event. He informed Timothy, indeed, that the Lord
had granted him power to testify confidently of the faith, and
that he would be delivered from the jaws of the lion, from the
death that was then ' threatening him;1 still he was far from
indulging the hope of being freed absolutely from the danger
of death. But this confidence he did enjoy, that the Lord
would deliver him from all moral evil, * and preserve him to
his heavenly kingdom. As Paul did not ascribe the power
of persisting steadfastly in the confession of the faith even
unto death, to himself, but to the power of God, who
strengthened him for this purpose ; — he therefore thus
expressed himself, that the Lord would uphold him stead
fast under all conflicts even until death, preserve him from
all unfaithfulness, and thus lead him to blessedness in his
kingdom. The apostle's feelings in the prospect of martyrdom
are inimitably expressed in his last epistle ; his elevated com
posure, his self-forgctfiilness, his tender fatherly care for his
disciple Timothy, his concern for the cause of the gospel
which he was about to leave exposed to so many attempts to
adulterate it, and yet his confidence in the divinity of that
cause, and in the almightiness of God watching over it, and
conducting its development, a confidence that rose victorious
over every doubt.
When he wrote the Epistle to the Philippians, and the end
of his earthly course was not yet in sight, he said, referring
to the defects and infirmities of which he was conscious as a
man, that he was far from believing that he had already
attained his aim — perfection; but that he was continually
striving after that aim, if he might attain that for which he
was called by Christ. Philip, iii. 12. But since he now saw
himself actually at the end of his course — since he now looked
1 The words 2 Tim. iv. 17, may be taken as a figurative expression,
to denote generally deliverance from apparently impending death. But
it would be also possible to understand them literally, for at that time
it would be always possible that Paul, notwithstanding his Roman
citizenship, might have reason to apprehend so shameful a death,
though he was actually exempted from it.
2 After Paul had said, 2 Tim. iii. 17, that the Lord had delivered
him from impending death, he expressed the hope that he would
still further deliver him. But this it was needful for him more dis
tinctly to define and limit, for he would have said more than, under the
circumstances, he was warranted to expect, if he had not added a limit-
346 PAUL'S SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.
back on that course with the prospect of approaching mar
tyrdom, and by the power of the Lord had remained faithful
under all his conflicts hitherto — and since he was animated by
the confident persuasion that, by the same power, he would
be brought forth victorious from the conflicts that still
awaited him, ! — at this critical moment, resting alone on the
divine promise, all uncertainty vanished from his soul, and
he could with assurance say of himself, " I have fought the
good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith.
Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness."
2 Tim. iv. 7, 8.2
He was far less occupied with thoughts about himself, than
with anxiety for the church which he was on the point of
leaving in a vehement conflict, both internal and external,
but the dangers of the internal conflict were those which gave
him. the greatest uneasiness. In Lesser Asia, he had been
brought into frequent collision with a false Jewish Christian
Gnosis, which was spreading in opposition to the simple
gospel. He saw in spirit that this false tendency was con
tinually gaining ground, and that, by its arts of deception,
it was seducing numbers. Still, he was confident, that its
deceptions would at last be exposed, and that the Lord would
maintain that gospel which he had entrusted to his ministry,
.and without him, preserve it pure until the day of his second
Doming.3 Since he might assume, that these false teachers
ing clause, — namely, that God would deliver him from all moral evil,
£uch as want of fidelity to the gospel, and thus bring him victorious
cut of all conflicts into his heavenly kingdom; whether he had in his
thoughts that participation of the kingdom of heaven, which he hoped
to attain by martyrdom, in a fuller communion- with Christ and God, or
his deliverance to a participation in the perfected kingdom of Christ
after his second coming ; as he felt certain, if he were preserved from all
evil, of partaking in this kingdom of Christ, \vhether he lived to that
time or died before it came. I will not now attempt to decide between
these two modes of interpretation. But one of them must necessarily
be taken in connexion with what goes before. I cannot allow that
these words are a contradiction to 2 Tim. iv. 6—8, nor assent to what
Credner, in his Einleiiung, i. p. 478, founds upon it.
1 This confidence he also expressed in Philip, i. 20.
2 Hence there is no contradiction between the judgment Paul ex
presses of himself in this epistle and in that to the Phiiippians.
3 If we picture to ourselves how Paul was then occupied with the
thoughts of death, how uncertain his condition, and under what per
plexing, relations Timothy found himself in the field of labour where
PAUL'S MARTYRDOM. 347
were known to Timothy, and had no doubt often conferred
with him on the means of counteracting them, he 6
himself with a general delineation of their character.
mentioned amongst others, those who taught that the rest
rection was already past (like the later Gnostics), and who
probably explained everything which Christ had said respecting
the resurrection, of the spiritual awakening by the divin
power of the gospel. From this single mark we may conclude,
that in general they indulged in a very arbitrary treatment
of the historical facts of religion, as far as these did not har
monize with their preconceived opinions. l
We cannot determine with certainty the year in which
Paul's martyrdom occurred. We can only place it in one of
the last of Nero's reign. And with this supposition another
circumstance agrees. At this time most probably the Epistl
to the Hebrews was written by an apostolic man of the
Pauline school.2 At its conclusion, xiii. 23, we find mention
made of the lately obtained release of Timothy, whom we
.cannot suppose to be any other than the disciple
Paul had left him, we cannot deem it very surprising that he should
communicate to him these fuller instructions, although he still hoped to
"'I hI\mmTi d^bted'wheiher Alexander the coppersmith, mentioned
in 2 Tim iv. 14, belonged to the number of these false teachers. In
this case he would be the same as the person mentioned m 1
It would indeed be possible that this false teacher from Lesser Asm, ex
asperated at being excluded by Paul from church communion, when he
came to Rome, sought to take revenge on the apostle. And the ^repoi
xZii mMit then be understood, not of the Christian doctrine general y,
but o the pure exposition of the evangelical doctrine as it was given by
Pau But a Gentile or Jew from Lesser Asia might be intended who
violently persecuted Christianity. In this case, he would be distinct
from the person mentioned in the First Epistle to Timothy; and it
lould be on that account by no means clear that the author of the , Hirst
Epistle to Timothy was some one else than Paul, who from a mis
had made Alexander a false teacher, and had classed him nth
Hymcnams; for why should not so common a name as
belong to two different persons in Lesser Asia! There is no grour
whatever to suppose that this Alexander was the same who is mentioned
in Acts xix. 88, for it is far from being evident that he was so violent
an enemy of Christianity; the Jews put him forward, not to lyake corn-
faints against the Christians or Paul, but rather to prevent he rage of
the heathens against the enemies of their gods trom being turned
against themselves.
2 Sec Bleek's Introduction to this epistle, p. 434.
348 PAUL'S MARTYRDOM.
companion of Paul. It was Paul's desire that he should
come to him, and the zealous sympathy which he evinced
had the effect of causing him to be apprehended as one of the
most active members of the hated sect. If this happened at
the time of the Neronian persecution, Timothy would pro
bably have shared the fate of all the Christians at Rome
who could then be discovered. But if it happened some
years later, it is not improbable that, by the influence of
particular circumstances, Timothy obtained his freedom after
the martyrdom of Paul.
BOOK IV.
A REVIEW OF THE LABOURS OF JAMES AND PETER DURING
THIS PERIOD.
CHAPTER I.
THE CHARACTER OF JAMES — REMARKS ON HIS El'ISTLF.
As along with that unity of the spirit which proceeded from
Christ, we have observed an important difference existing in
the forms of its representation among the apostles, so the
apostle Paul, and that James who was known as a brother
of the Lord, present the most striking contrast to each other,
whether we regard their natural peculiarities, their Christian
conformation, or the sphere of their labours. In Paul, Chris
tianity is exhibited in its most decided self-subsistence, freed
from the preparatory garb of Judaism; while James repre
sents the new spirit under the ancient form, and we may
observe in him the gradual transition from the old to the new.
Hence Paul and James mark the two extreme limits in the
development of Christianity from Judaism ; as Paul was the
chief instrument for presenting Christianity to mankind as
the new creation, so was James for exhibiting the organic
connexion of Christianity with the preparatory and prefigur
ing system of Judaism. After the martyrdom of the elder
James, who was a son of Zcbedee and brother of John, only
one very influential person of this name appears in the Chris
tian history, who stood at the head of the church at Jerusalem,
•and under the titles of the Brother of the Lord, and the Just,
was held in the highest esteem by Christians of Jewish descent
But from ancient times it has been doubted, whether this
James was, strictly speaking, a brother of the Lord, that
350 THE APOSTLE JAMES.
is, either a son of Joseph by a former marriage, or more
probably a later son of Mary,1 and therefore a different person
from the apostle the son of Alpheus, or whether he was in
a general sense a relation of Jesus, a sister's son of Mary,
a son of Cleopas or Alpheus, and accordingly identical with
the apostle of this name.2
1 See Leben Jesu, p. 40.
2 This question is one of the most difficult in the apostolic history.
Dr. Schneckenburger in his acute and profound investigation (in his
Annotatio ad Epistolam Jacobi. Stuttgart, 1832, p. 144,) has brought
the hypothesis of only one James to a higher degree of probability than
it had before attained, and has said many things deserving considera
tion, which tend to remove the difficulties attached to it; but alter all
his remarks, many reasons for doubting remain. Later investigations,
especially those of Credner, in his Einleitung, p. 573, have thrown
additional weight into the opposite scale. We wish to present in an
impartial manner the arguments for and against this hypothesis. Since,
after the death of Jame* the son of Zebedee, only one James is men
tioned as one of the most influential men in the first apostolic church,
and ranking with those apostles who were most esteemed, there is the
highest probability that this James was no other than the only apostle
still living of this name. If the term d5eA06s is understood only in a
laxer sense, the title of " Brother of the Lord" proves nothing against
the identity of the person ; for, from comparing Matt, xxvii. 56 ; xxviii.
1, Mark xv. 40, with John xix. 25, it is evident that James the apostle,
son of Alpheus or Cleopas (both names derived from the Hebrew sc?n),
was really a sifter's son of Mary the mother of Je^us. As so near a rela
tion of Jesus, he might accoidingly be distinguished from the other
apostles by the title of a brother of the Lord. But then it is asked,
Why was he not rather distinguished by the strictly appropriate name
of dv€^L''s1 And if at that time there were persons in existence who
might with strict prop.iety be called " Brothers of the Lord," is it not
so much the less probable, that this name in an improper sense would
be applied to him] Nevertheless, we may suppose, that in common
discourse — since it was not a point of consequence to mark definitely the
degree of kin between Jesus and this James, but only to represent him
in general terms as enjoying the honour of near relationship to the
Lord, — it had become customary to designate him simply a brother of
the Lord, especially among the Judaizing Christians, by whom such
distinctions of earthly affinity would be most highly prized ; and this
might be still more easily explained, if we admit with Schneckenburger,
that after the death of Joseph (which took place at an early period)'
Mary removed to the house of her sister, the wife of Alpheus ; hence, it
would be usual to designate her sons who lived from their childhood
with Jesus, who had no other brothers, simply as the brethren of Jesus.
Thus, then, this James would be one of the brethren of Jesus who are
named in Matt. xiii. 55, Mark vi. 3. Among these we find a Joses,
who, in Matt, xxvii. 56, is distinguished as the brother of James, and a
Judas; and if we explain the surname JIa/cw/3ou given to the apostle
THE APOSTLE JAMES. 351
If we put together all that is handed down to us in the
New Testament, and in other historical records, the most pro-
Judas, on comparing it with the Epistle of Jude, v. 1, by supplying the
word d5fA4>()s (which cannot be assumed as absolutely certain), we shall
also again find in him a brother of the apostle James. And the one named
Simon among these brethren, we may perhaps find again in the list of*
the apostles, as all three are named together in Acts i. 13. According
to that supposition, it would be no longer surprising that the brethren
of Christ are often mentioned in connexion with his mother; and yet
from that circumstance no evidence can be deduced that would prove
them to be in a strict sense his brethren. We must then assume with
Schneckenburgcr, that when Matthew (xiii. 55), after the mention of the
twelve apostles, distinguishes the brethren of Jesus from them, it
proceeded from the want of chronological exactness in his mode of
narration.
But if several of the so-called brethren of Jesus were among tho
apostles, still the manner in which the former are distinguished from,
the latter in Acts i. 14, is remarkable. Besides, according to the account
in Mark iii. 31, a state of mind towards Jesus is supposed to exist in
these brethren, which could not be attributed to the apostles, and yet it
appears from comparing this account with the parallel passages in
Matt. xii. and Luke viii., that this incident must be placed after the
choice of the twelve apostles. This riew is confirmed by the disposition
manifested by these brethren of Christ, even in the last half-year before
his sufferings. All this taken together, must decide us in favour of the
supposition, that the brethren of Jesus, commonly mentioned in con
nexion with Mary the mother of Jesus, are to be altogether distin
guished from the apostles, and therefore they must be considered as the
brethren of Jesus in a stricter sense, either as the sons of Joseph by a
former marriage, or the later born sons of Joseph and Mary, which from
Matt. i. 25, is most probable. That Christ when dying said to John,
that from that time he should treat Mary as his mother, can at all events .
oppose only the supposition, that these brethren were the offspring ot
Joseph and Mary, and not the supposition that they were the step-son*
of Mary. But even against the iirst supposition, this objection is not
decisive ; for if these brethren of Jesus still continued estranged from
him in their disposition, we can at once perceive why at his death he
commended his mother to his beloved disciple John. It may indeed
appear surprising, that these brethren of Christ, according to Matthew
xiii. 55, bore the same names as their cousins, but this can be affirmed
with certainty only of two, and as the two sisters had one name, it
might happen, owing to particular circumstances, that one son of each
was named alike.
But irom what has been said, it by no means follows, that the James
who is distinguished in the New Testament as a brother of the Lord,
was one of these brethren of Christ in a stricter sense. It might stil
be consistent with that fact, that this James was to be distinguished
from the James who was the actual brother of the Lord, and, as a cousin
of Christ who was honoured with this name, was to be held as identical
with the apostle, although in thia case it is less probable that when an.
352 THE APOSTLE JAMES.
bable result of the whole is, that this James was one of the
brethren of Christ, of whom we have spoken in/ our " Lifj of
Jesus/' p. 40. Thus it appears how very much* the course of
actual brother of Jesus bora the name of James, the cousin should be
honoured with the same title, instead of being distinguished by the
epithet dfe^os from that other James, to whom the surname of Brother
of the Lord would in strictest propriety be given.
If we are disposed to examine the pas ;ages in the Pauline epistles
which contain a particular reference to this point, there are two espe
cially deserving of notice. As to the passage in 1 Cor. ix. 5, /cat ot
AoiTrot airoirroXoi KU\ ol a5eA</>ot TOV Kvplou, it cannot be proved from
these words that the brethren of the Lord were distinct from the
apostles, for they may be supposed to mean, that Paul, by the other
apostles, understood those who could not claim such a relationship
to the Lord, and that he particularly distinguishes those who were
brethren of the Lord from the other apostles, because, in virtue of that
relationship, they stood high in the opinion of the party with whom he
had here to do. That he names Peter immediately after, rather favours
the notion that the brethren of the Lord, as well as Peter, belonged to
the number of the apostles. Yet this is not a decisive proof, for it
would surely be possible that, although the brethren of the Lord did
not belong to the apostles, Paul might mention them in this connexion,
because they, or some of them, were held in equal estimation by the
Jewish Christians of Palestine ; and as, along with them, Peter was
most highly respected, he is particularly mentioned at the same time.
It is indeed possible, that Paul here uses the term apostle, not in the
strictest sense, but in a wider meaning, as in Horn. xvi. 7 ; and HO
much the more, since he afterwards mentions Barnabas, to whom the
name of an apostle could be applied only in that more general accepta
tion of the term. The second important passage is Gal. i. 19, where
Paul, after speaking of his conference with the apostle Peter at
Jerusalem, adds, that he had seen no other of the apostles, " save James
the Lord's brother." Yet, from this passage, it cannot be so certainly
inferred as Dr. Schneckenburger thinks, that the James here named
. was one of the apostles. The state of the case may be conceived to
have been thus : Paul had originally, in his thoughts, only a negative
' position, he had seen no other apostle but Peter at Jerusalem. But as
it afterwards occurred to him, that he had seen at Jerusalem James the
brother of the Lord, who, though no apostle, was held in apostolic
estimation by the Judaizers, on this account he added, by way of
limitation, a reference to James. We must therefore add to the el /M),
a complementary idea allied to that of cnroa-rnXos ; on a construction of
this kind, see Winer, p. 517. It may be asked whether Paul would
have expressed himself in this manner, if he had reckoned James in the
stricter sense among the apostles ] Would he have expressed the nega
tion so universally, and, after he had so expressed it, have here first
introduced the limitation, if from the first he had thought of saying
that he saw none of the apostles excepting two '! When Schnecken
burger, from the words in Acts ix. 27, infers that Paul must at that
THE APOSTLE JAMES. 353
his religious development was distinguished from that of the
apostle Paul. The latter, during the life of Christ on earth,
time have conferred with at least two apostles at Jerusalem, he attaches
greater weight than can be allowed with certainty to single expressions
in this short narrative.
Yet, if we compare on this point the oldest ecclesiastical traditions,
the comparison of the account in the gospel of the Hebrews (see Hie-
ronym. de V. I. c. ii.) with 1 Cor. xv. 7 appears to favour the identity of
the one James, for in that gospel it is said that Christ, after his resur
rection, appeared to James the Just, the brother of the Lord. But in
the passage in the Epistle to the Corinthians, the same James seems to
be mentioned as one of the twelve apostles. Still we find here nothing
absolutely certain, for it cannot be shown that the reference in that
gospel is to the same appearance of Christ as in the epistle. And if it
be assumed that James the brother of the Lord was then held in such
great esteem, that when this name was mentioned only one individual
would be generally thought of, it is not perfectly clear, from his being
brought forward in this connexion, that he was reckoned by Paul among
the apostles. Now, in reference to the tradition of Hegesippus, in
Euseb. ii. 23, when he says that James the brother of the Lord under
took with the apostles, yue-ni rav airoo-roAwi/, the guidance of the church
at Jerusalem, it is most natural to suppose that he means to distinguish
James from the apostles, otherwise he would have said /terd TUV \onrwv.
although we would not consider the other interpretation as impossible,
especially in writers of this class, in whom we do not look for great
precision in their mode of expression. Also, the whole narrative of
Hegesippus leads us to believe, that he considered James as distinct
from the apostles ; for, although this representation bears upon it, at
all events, marks of internal improbability, yet it would not appear
altogether irrational, on the supposition that this James was an apostle
appointed by Christ himself. But we must compare with this passage
the words of Hegesippus in Euseb. iv. 22. juerd TO /jiaprvpTJffai. 'laKca&ov
rbv Sinaiov, ws Kal 6 Kvpios eirl T<£ avrcp \6yco, ird\iv 6 CK dfiov ai/Vou
3,v/j.(uv 6 TOV KAwTTu KadiffTarai firiffKOVos, $)V irpofdfVTO TrdvTfs uvTaavetyiov
TOV Kvpiov SfvTfpov. If we understand by these words, that this Simeon
was called the second nephew in relation to the afore-mentioned James
the Just, as the first nephew of the Lord, it would follow that that
James, as a nephew of the Lord, is called his brother. Yet, if another
interpretation is possible, according to which Hegesippus agrees with
himself, in reference to the words before quoted, such an interpretation
must be readily preferred. And this interpretation is that which agrees
best with the words in their existing position. For, since James is the
principal subject in the first half of the sentence, the avrov must refer
to him. Cleopas, accordingly, is called the uncle of James, and hh son
Simeon cannot therefore be the brother of James, but is his cousin ; as
Cleopas (= Alpheus) is the uncle of Jesus, (and, according to Hegesip
pus in Euseb. iii. 11, both on the side of Joseph as well as of Mary,)
Simeon the cousin of Jesus and the cousin of James, which again
favours the opinion that they were brothers. But Hegesippus might
call this Simeon a second nephew, since he looked upon the apostle
VOL. I. A A
354 THE APOSTLE JAMES.
was at a distance from all personal outward communication
with him, and learnt to know him first by spiritual communi
cation. James, on the contrary, stood in the closest family
relation to the Kedeemer, and from the first was present with
him during the whole of his earthly development ; but it was
exactly this circumstance which contributed to his being more
slow to recognise in the son of man, the Son of God ; and
while he clave only to the earthly appearance, he was pre
vented from penetrating through the shell to the substance.
Paul, by a violent crisis, made the transition from the most
vehement and unsparing opposition to the gospel, to the most
zealous advocacy of it. James gradually advanced from a
Judaism of great earnestness and depth, which blended with
a faith that constantly became more decisive in Jesus as the
Messiah, to Christianity as the glorification and fulfilling of
the law.
There is probably some truth in what is narrated by the
Christian historian Hegesippus, that this James led from
childhood the life of a Nazarene. If we consider what an im
pression the appearances at and after the birth of Christ, and
the conviction that the first-born son of Mary was destined to
be the Messiah — must have left on the minds of his parents,
it may be easily explained how they felt themselves compelled
to dedicate their first-born son James,1 to the service of
Jehovah in strict abstinence for the whole of his life. To this
also it might be owing, that the freer mode of living which
Christ practised with his disciples was less congenial to him ;
and from his strict, legal, Jewish standing-point he could not
comprehend the new spirit which revealed itself in Christ's
words ; many of these must have appeared to him as " hard
James, the son of Alpheus, who was no longer living, as the first
nephew. We might also insert a stop after Kvpiov, and connect Sei/Tepov
with Trpoedevro ; by this construction, mention would be made of only
one cousin of the Lord, as the successor of his brother, as the second
overseer of the church. But the position of the words is very much
against this construction. Certainly, the testimony of Hegesippus must
have great weight, on account of his high antiquity, his descent, and
his connexion with the Jews of Palestine. But it is undeniable, if we
compare the two passages from the Hypotyposeis of Clement, quoted by
Eusebius, ii. 1, that he distinguishes James, who bore the surname of
the Just, as an apostle in the stricter sense of the word.
1 His being described by the appellation of the son, indicates that he
was the eldest.
THE APOSTLE JAMES. 355
sayings." Proceeding from the common Jewish standing-
point, he expected that Jesus, if he were the Messiah, would
verify himself to be such in the presence of the people by
signs that would compel the universal recognition of his
claims, by the establishment of a visible kingdom in earthly
glory. By the impression of Christ's ministry he became
indeed excited to believe, but the power of early habit and
prejudice always counteracted that impression, and he found
himself in a state of indecision from which he could not
at once free himself. Only half a year before the last suffer
ings of Christ we find him in this vacillating condition, for
John does not in this respect distinguish him from the other
brethren of Jesus, with whom this was certainly the case ;
John vii. 5. But after the ascension of Christ, he appears as
a decided and zealous member of the company of disciples ;
Acts i. 13. We see how important the Saviour deemed it
to produce such a faith in him by his honouring him with a
special appearance after the resurrection (1 Cor. xv. 7), whe
ther this was occasioned or not, by his having expressed
doubts like Thomas.1 This James obtained constantly in
creasing respect in the church at Jerusalem.
Every feature of his character which we can gather from the
Acts, from Josephus,2 and from the traditions of Hegesippus
in Eusebius,3 well agrees with the image of him presented in
the epistle that bears his name. By his strict pious life, which
agreed with the Jewish notions of legal piety, he won the
universal veneration, not only of the believers among the Jews,
1 The narrative in the Gospel of the Hebrews (see Leben Jesu, p. 720,)
is not an authority of sufficient credit to allow ot our following it here.
It tells us that James, after partaking of the Last Supper with Christ,
made a vow that he would not again taste food till he had seen him
risen from the dead ; that Christ appeared to him as the Risen One,
and said, " Now eat thy bread, for the Son of Man is risen from the
dead." We must certainly consider how important it was for the
wavering-minded James, who, in hia epistle, has eo vividly described
the unhappiness of such a state (i. 5), to attain to the certainty on this
subject, which such an occurrence would give him, and which such a
vow led him to expect. But not only is the work of the Jewi.-h Chris
tian, who bestowed so much pains in embellishing the history of James,
not a credible source of information in itself, but there is also a palpable
contradiction in the chronology of the history of the resurrection between
this narrative and Paul's account.
2 Joseph. Archseol. xx 9.
3 Hist. Eccles. n. 23.
356 THE APOSTLE JAMES.
but also of the better disposed among his countrymen gene
rally : on this account, he was distinguished by the surname
of the Just, PI?, Bkaioc ; and, if we may credit the account
of Hegesippus, he was viewed as one of those men of dis
tinguished and commanding excellence who set themselves
against the corruptions of their age, and hence was termed
the bulwark of the people.1 According to the representations
of this writer, he must have led a life after the manner of the
strictest ascetics among the Jews. The consecration of his
childhood had already introduced him to such a mode of life,
and we might suppose, that he had already won by it peculiar
respect among the Jews, if it were not surprising that no trace
can be found of it in the gospels, no marks of special dis
tinction awarded to him by his brethren. At all events, he
might afterwards avail himself of this ascetic strictness as a
means of attracting the attention of the multitude to his
person, and thereby to the doctrine he published. This mode
of life considered in itself, provided its value was not rated
too high, was by no means unchristian. What Hegesippus
narrates of him perfectly suits his character, that he fre
quently prostrated himself on his knees in the temple, calling
upon God to forgive the sins of his people, (probably having
a special reference to the forgiveness of their sins against the
Messiah,) — that the divine judgments on the unbelievers might
be averted, — and that they might be led to repentance and
faith, and thus to a participation of the kingdom of the
glorified Messiah.
But some important doubts may be raised against the
credibility of this account of Hegesippus, taken in its full
extent. That Ebionite party among whom an ascetic, theoso-
phic tendency prevailed, and who circulated apocryphal wri
tings under the name of James, had probably formed an ideal
conception of his character in harmony with their own peculi
arities, and Hegesippus might mistake the image delineated
in their traditions for an historical reality. The Epistle of
James by no means bears decided marks of such a tendency,
for everything which has been supposed to be of this kind
may very properly be referred to the simple Christian renun-
1 Perhaps Dtf *?D3> or D^ 15, which comes nearer the phraseology of
Hegesippus ; unless, which is indeed less probable, we read, with Fuller,
DJ?? v$t which Hegesippus translates TTfpto^ roC \aw.
THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 3,57
elation of the world, such as has its seat in the disposition. If
the Jewish love of gain is here spoken against, if the earthly-
mindedness of the rich, the homage paid to this class and
the contempt of the poor, is condemned, and it is declared
that the gospel has found the most ready access to the latter,
and exalted them to the highest dignity, yet it by no means
follows, that the author of this epistle entirely condemned,
like the Ebionites, all possession whatever of earthly goods.
This epistle is especially important, not only for illustrating
the character of James, but also for giving us an insight into
the state of the Christian churches which were formed from
Judaism, and unmixed with Christians of Gentile descent.
According to an opinion very generally prevalent from ancient
times, we should be led to believe that the peculiar doctrinal
system of the apostle Paul had already been formed and
disseminated when this epistle was written, and that those
clmrches particularly to whom it was addressed, had been
affected by the influence of this Pauline system. The opinion
we refer to is, that James in this epistle either combated the
Pauline doctrine of justification by faith in and for itself, or a
misunderstanding, and an erroneous application of it. And
it would not be difficult to support this opinion by many
isolated passages in the epistle taken alone, without a reference
to their connexion with the whole : ' for it seems as if the
express reference to the Pauline formula of the justification to
be obtained by faith alone, and to which works can contribute
nothing, could not be mistaken ; especially as the same
examples of faith as those mentioned by Paul, namely those
of Abraham and Sarah, are adduced. But this opinion, though
plausible at first sight, if we examine more closely the relation
of particular passages to the whole tenor of the epistle, will
soon appear untenable. The error in reference to faith which
1 We wish to remark, in passing, that among those who have thought
that they have detected a contradiction between James and Paul in the
doctrine of justification, is the celebrated patriarch Cyrillus Lucaris, of
Constantinople, who was led to the opinion by reading the epistle
It also struck him that the name of Christ is scarcely mentioned above
once or twice, and then coldly (ami del nonio di Jesu Ckristo a pcna
fa mentions una o due volte e freddamente) ; that the mysteries of the
'incarnation of the Son of God and of redemption are not treated of, but
only morality (solo a la moralita attende) ; see Letter vii. in Lettres
Anecdotes de Cyrille Lucar. Amsterdam, 1718, p. 85.
358 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
James combats in this epistle, is certainly not one altogether
isolated : but it appears as an offset proceeding with many
others from the root of one false principle : and this principle
is quite distinct from that which would admit of an application,
whether correct or incorrect, of the Pauline doctrine. It was
the tendency of the Jewish spirit, refusing to acknowledge the
life of religion as seated in the disposition, everywhere taking
up the mere dead form, the appearance instead of the reality,
in religion ; this tendency, which substituted a lifeless arrogant
acquaintance with the letter for the genuine wisdom insepa
rable from the divine life — which prided itself in an inopera
tive knowledge of the law, without paying any attention to
the practice of the law — which placed devotion in outward
ceremonies, and neglected that devotion which shows itself in
works of love — which contented itself with the verbal expres
sion of love, instead of proving it by works ; it was the same
tendency of the Jewish mind estranged from the spirit and
life of religion, which, as it laid an undue value on the opus
operatum of outward religious acts, so also on the opus
operatum of a faith in the one Jehovah and in the Messiah,
which left the disposition unchanged ; and which presumed
that by such a faith, the Jew was sufficiently distinguished
from the sinful race of the Gentiles, and was justified before
God even though the conduct of the life was in contradiction
to the requirements of faith. Thus we find here one branch
of that practical fundamental error which chiefly prevailed
among these Jewish Christians, whom James combats in the
whole of the epistle, even where faith is not the immediate
subject of discourse. It was the erroneous tendency, wrhich
belonged to those that commonly prevailed among the great
mass of the Jews, and which had found its way also among
those Christians in whose minds the gospel had not effected a
complete transformation, but whose Jewish spirit had only
connected itself with faith in Jesus as the Messiah.1 (See
above, p. 21, and my Church History, vol. i. p. 47.)
1 That Jewish mode of thinking which Justin Martyr describes in
Dial. C. Trypll. Jud. fol. 370, ed. Colon. — &5s u/xeTs aTrarare eauroi/s Kai
aAAot rives vfjui> opoioi Kara rovru (in this respect Jewish-minded Chris
tians), ol Xeyovatv, on Kav afj.dpT(a/\oi SKTI, Oebv Se yivdffKovcrii', ov /JLT)
Ao7t<r7?Tcu avrois Kupios d,u.apriav. That mode of thinking which is
found in the Clementine homilies, according to which, faith in one God
(TO TTJS fjLovapx'ias Ka\6v) has such great magical power, that the ^V^T)
THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 359
But as to the Pauline doctrine of justification by faith,
whether correctly or incorrectly understood and applied, we
cannot suppose its influence to be possible in churches of this
class, and hence argumentation against it from the standing-
point of James is utterly inconceivable.1 As the superscrip
tion and contents of his epistle inform us, it was manifestly
addressed only to churches that were composed entirely of
Jewish Christians. But such persons were least of all disposed
to attach themselves particularly to Paul, and least of all dis
posed and fitted to agree to the Pauline doctrine, which
presented the most direct opposition to their customary mode
of thinking. It was precisely from persons of this stamp that
the intemperate fanatical outcry was raised against this form
of Christian doctrine, as if by depending on grace, men were
made secure in sin, or that they were authorized in doing
evil that good might come, Rom. iii. 8. In an entirely
different quarter, from an Hellenic (gnostic) Antinomianism,
which was also Antijudaism, arose at a later period an erro
neous, practically destructive appropriation and application
of the Pauline doctrine of justification, such as Paul himself
thought it needful to guard against by anticipation ; Rom.
vi. 1; Gal. v. 13. And this later erroneous application of
novapxtn, even while living in vice, had this advantage before idolaters,
that it could not perish, but through purifying punishments would at
last attain to salvation. See Horn. iii. c. 6. The idea of faith, which,
from an entirely different source than from a misunderstanding of Paul,
found entrance afterwards among Christians themselves, and to which
a Marcion directly opposed the Pauline idea of faith. Against, such
perversions Paul warned the churches, both by word of mouth and in
writing, when he so impressively charged it upon them that their
renunciation of heathenism was nugatory, and could not contribute to
their participation of the kingdom of God, if they did not renounce
their former sinful habits. See Gal. v. 21. The ncval \6yot, against
which he warns the Ephesiaus, v. 6.
1 Dr. Kern, in his essay on the Origin of the Epistle of James, m the
Tubingen Zeitschrift fur Theologic, 1835, p. 25, on account of \\hat is
here asserted, charges me with a petitio principii ; but I cannot
perceive with any justice. This charge might be brought home to me
if I had assumed, without evidence, that this epistle was addressed to an
unmixed church ; or if 1 had passed altogether unnoticed the possible
case which Kern considers as the actual (though he has abandoned
it lately in the Introduction to his Commentary on this Epistle), that it
was forged by a Jewish Christian in James's name, in order to con
trovert the Pauline doctrinal views which prevailed among the Gentile
churches.
360 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
the idea of faith, which tended likewise to the injury of prac
tical Christianity, proceeded from an entirely different expo
sition of this idea than that presented by the one-sided
direction of the Jewish spirit. It manifested itself rather as
an Oriental Hellenic than as a Jewish spirit ; it was not the
abstract idea of faith, but a one-sided contemplative or ideal
ising tendency, which deviated from the conception of faith as
an animating principle of the will and a practical determina
tion of the life.
From what has been said, therefore, it is impossible to
suppose, in an epistle addressed to such churches as these,
any reference whatever to the Pauline formula of faith. And
even admitting such a reference to exist, yet the notion that
it consisted only in combating a misunderstanding of the
Pauline doctrine, would be wholly untenable. For how can
we suppose that James, if he did not intend to contradict
Paul, but to maintain apostolic fellowship with him, and
the knowledge of it in the churches, — would not, while com
bating an erroneous interpretation of the Pauline doctrine, at
the same time expressly state the correct interpretation, and
guard himself against the appearance of opposition to Paul,
especially when an opposition might otherwise be so easily
imagined by the Jewish Christians. But if we assumed that
the intention of James was really to combat Paul's doctrine,
this view would be at variance with what we know from
history of the good understanding between the two apostles,
and which cannot be set aside by the fact that some of Paul's
opponents were those who appealed to the authority of James.
See above, p. 115.
Another supposition still remains, that some one forged
the Epistle under James's name,1 in order to give currency
1 The assertion made by Kern, p. 72 of the essay before quoted, that,
according to the principles of that early Christian age, such a literary
imposture would be irreproachable, I cannot acknowledge as well-
founded, if expressed without limitation. There was indeed a certain
standing-point, on which such a fraus pia, as we must always call it
(when a palpable falsehood was made use of to put certain sentiments in
circulation,) would be allowed ; but that this was a generally approved
practice, appears to me an arbitrary assumption. We ought care
fully to guard against supposing that to be an universally received
principle, which was only the peculiarity of individual mental ten
dencies. There was a one-sided theoretic, speculative, standing-point,
from which lax principles respecting veracity proceeded, as we have
THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 3G1
in the church to a belief in an opposition between the two
apostles, and this design would well suit the one-sided ten
dency of a Jewish Christian. But such a person would not
only have expressed himself in a more decided manner than
that James, of whose reputation he wished to avail himself;
but he would have pointed out by name the individual (Paul)
against whom he directed his attack, and would have ex
pressed in stronger terms the censure of his doctrine. The
subordinate place which in this case the confutation of the
Pauline doctrine occupies in relation to the whole of the
epistle, certainly does not agree with this hypothesis. Or, if
it be said that the author of this epistle, who presented him
self under the mask of James, did not belong to the violent
Judaizing opponents of Paul, but to a milder, more accom
modating party, who only aimed at smoothing down the
peculiarities of the Pauline scheme of doctrine, and so modi
fying it as to bring it nearer the Jewish Christian standing-
point, and for that reason adopted a gentler method, and
avoided the mention of Paul's name ; in this case, there would
still have been a necessity of naming him, and explicitly
stating that the writer of the epistle impugned not his
doctrine in itself, but only a harsh and overstrained con
struction of it. And after all, the singular fact would remain
unaccounted for, that the main object and design of the
writer occupies only a subordinate place in relation to the
whole of the epistle.
What has given occasion to all these various suppositions,
is the apparent allusion to expressions and illustrations made
remarked in Plato. It was connected with that aristocraticism of
antiquity, first overturned by the power of the gospel, which treated the
mass of the people as unsusceptible of pure truth in religion, and hence
justified the use of falsehood to serve as leading-strings for the iroXAot.
As the reaction of such an earlier standing-point, we find this view
in parties of kindred tendencies, such as the Alexandrian Jews,
the Gnostics, the Platonising Alexandrian fathers. But from the first,
a sounder practical Christian spirit combated this error, as we see
in the instances of Justin Martyr, Irenanis, and Tertullian. The anti-
gnostic tendency was also zealous for strict veracity. Now a similar
practical tendency distinguishes this epistle, in which I cannot find an
Ebionitish anti-pauline standing-point. This spirit of strict veracity is
shown in what is said respecting swearing. This epistle, indeed, wears
altogether a different character from the Clementines, which show a
decided party tendency and party bias.
362 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
use of by Paul. But is this allusion really so very evident 1
Let us recollect that the Pauline phraseology formed itself
from Judaism, from the Jewish-Greek diction — that it by no
means created new modes of expression, 1 but often only
appropriated the ancient Jewish terms, employed them in
new combinations, applied them to new contrasts, and ani
mated them with a new spirit. Thus neither the term
dutaiovarOai in reference to God, nor the term TTLGTIQ "was
entirely new ; but both these terms and the ideas indicated
by them (and indeed, in reference to the first, the same idea
the existence of which among the Jews Paul must have
assumed in arguing with his Jewish opponents) had been long
familiar to the Jews. The example likewise of Abraham as
a hero in faith must have been obvious to every Jew, and
the example of Rahab (which is adduced only in the Epistle
to the Hebrews — an epistle neither composed by Paul nor
containing the peculiarly Pauline doctrinal statement of
justifying faith), since it proved the benefit of the mono
theistic faith to a Gentile of impure life, must have espe
cially commended itself to the Jews who were disposed to
extol the importance of faith in Jehovah. 2
Since it appears that a reference to the Pauline doctrinal
scheme is not indicated in this epistle, that mark is with
drawn by which it has been thought that the late period of
its composition could be proved ; in order, therefore, to
determine this point, we must seek for other marks in the
epistle itself. It is remarkable that, according to its super
scription, it is addressed only to the Jews of the twelve
tribes who lived in the dispersion, and yet it is manifestly
addressed to Christians. Yet this may be very well ex
plained if we consider the standing-point of James, such as
it is shown to be by the whole of the epistle. He considers
1 On the manner in which Paul employed phrases which were already
in use among Jewish theologians, compare Dr. Koeth's work, De Epistola
ad Hebrceos, p. 121, &c., though I cannot agree with the author in
what he attempts to prove; for in the use which Paul makes of
an existing form of dogmatic expression, he forms the most decided
contrast to the Jewish meaning. But it appears from this, how James,
proceeding from the Jewish standing-point, without any reference to
the Pauline doctrine, would be led to the choice of such expressions.
2 Thus it appears to me that what Dr. De Wette says in the Studien
und Kritiken, 1830, p. 349, in order to point out an intentional
opposition of James to Paul, is nullified.
THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 3G3
the acknowledgment of the Messiahship of Jesus as essen
tially belonging to genuine Judaism, believers in Jesus as
the only genuine Jews, Christianity as perfected Judaism, by
which the ropoQ had attained its completion. And it is not
impossible that, although he addressed himself especially to
Christians, he also had in his thoughts the Jewish readers
into whose hands the epistle might fall, as Christians lived
among the Jews without any marked separation. From the
mention of their descent from the twelve tribes, we may infer
that these churches consisted purely of Jewish Christians, or
that James, who considered himself peculiarly the apostle of
the Jews, addressed only the Jewish part of the church. Yet
as no notice is taken of the relation of Jewish to Gentile
Christians, it is by far the most probable opinion that these
churches consisted entirely of the former. Partly from the
peculiar standing-point of James, and partly from the pecu
liar situation of these churches which had retained all the
Jewish forms, we may account for the use of the ancient
Jewish name o-uvaywyr/, instead of the peculiar Christian term
tKKXrjvia as the designation of the meeting of the community
of believers. ' Such churches might exist during the later
apostolic age in the inland parts of Asia, perhaps in Syria,
But if the epistle was addressed to churches in these parts,
it appears strange that James, to whom the Aramaic must
have been much more familiar than the Greek, (although it
was not impossible that he had so far learnt the Greek as to
be able to write an epistle in it,) should have made use of the
latter language. We must therefore conclude, that this point
was determined by a regard to the wants of his readers, and
that part of them at least belonged to the Hellenists. This
being assumed, we must fix the date of the epistle at a time
preceding the separate formation of Gentile Christian churches,
before the relation of Gentiles and Jews to one another in the
Christian church had been brought under discussion,2 the
1 Our knowledge of the spread of Christianity at this ^period,
is indeed far too defective to give a decisive opinion with Kern on
this point.
2 The view which Dr. Schneckenburger has acutely developed, and
defended in his valuable Beitrdrje zur Einleitung ins Neue Testament,
Stuttgart, 1832, and in his An'notatio ad Epistolam Jacobi. He ha*
expressed his agreement respecting the object of the argumentative
portion of this epistle, with the views I have developed in this work,
364 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
period of the first spread of Christianity in Syria, Cilicia, and
the adjacent regions. l
These churches consisted for the most part of the poor,2
(though some individuals among them were rich,)3 and they
were in various ways oppressed by the wealthy and influential
Jews. 4 Certainly these churches were so constituted, that,
in many cases, their Christianity consisted only in the acknow-
and in my earlier occasional writings. See liia essays on this subject in
Steudel's Tubinger Zeitsclirift fur Theologie, 1829, and in the Tubinger
Zeitsclirift fur Theologie, 1830, part ii.
1 An allusion to the use of the name xPiffriavo^ nas ^een erroneously
supposed in James ii. 7, and hence an attempt to fix the date of the
epistle. By KO.\OV ova^a. we may most properly understand the name of
Jesus, and this is the simplest explanation, since the words will be
most naturally applied to the invocation of the name of Jesus as the
Messiah, to whom believers were consecrated at baptism, the baptism
etj rb ovo/j.a TOV 'iTjcroD. See Schneckenburger's Commentary on the
passage.
2 According to the views brought forward by Kern, the author of this
epistle, in an Ebionitish manner, marked the genuine Christians, that
is in his opinion the Jewish Christians, as the poor, and the Gentile
Christians as the rich, whom he would not acknowledge to be genuine
Christians. But the condition of the Christian churches among the
Gentiles generally in this first age, certainly will not allow us to sup
pose, that it would occur to any one to impose this name upon them,
and in every point of view this supposition appears to be entirely
unsound.
3 James i. 10.
4 The passage in James ii. 7, is referred most naturally to the blas
pheming of Jesus by the enemies of Christianity, although the preceding
context relates not to religious persecutions, but to oppressions and
extortions of a different kind. Compare v. 4. It is by no means
evident, that by the rich in this epistle we are always to understand
members of the Christian community. The author may refer partly to
the rich among the Jews, who were averse from Christianity, partly to
the rich among the Christians, who formed a very small minority.
From the contrast in i. 9, 10, it by no means follows that by the rich in
the latter verse only Christians are intended. By those of low degree
who were to rejoice in being exalted, he could indeed mean only
Christians ; but among the rich, he might include those wealthy Jews,
who by their entire devotedness to earthly objects were prevented from
becoming Christians. It was the duty of these persons to learn the
nothingness of earthly possessions, which they had hitherto made their
highest good, to humble themselves, and in this self-humiliation to find
their true glory ; for with the nothingness of earthly things they would
learn the truly highest good, — the true dignity or elevation which was
imparted by the Messiah. In this manner they were required to
become Christians.
THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 365
ledgment of Jesus as the Messiah, and of his peculiar moral
precepts, which they considered as the perfecting of the law.
Since they were far from recognising and appropriating the
real essence of Christianity, they resembled the great mass of
the Jewish nation, in the predominance of a carnal mind, and
the prevalence of worldly lusts, contention, and slander.
Accordingly, we must either assume that Christianity among
them was still novel, and had not yet penetrated the life, as
from the beginning (see above, p. 21), there were many among
the Jews, who, carried away by the impression which the
extraordinary operations of the apostles had made upon them,
and attracted by the hope that Jesus would soon return, and
establish his kingdom on earth, the happiness of which they
depicted ao^eeably to their own inclinations, in such a state of
mind and with such expectations, made a profession of Chris
tianity, without having experienced any essential change of
character — or we must suppose, that these churches had sunk
into a state of degeneracy from a higher standing-point of the
Christian life. In the constitution of these churches there
was this peculiarity, that as the direction of the office of
teaching had not been committed to the presbyters, but only
the outward management of church affairs, many members of
the community came forward as teachers, while no one acted
officially in that capacity; (see above, pp. 35 — 141.) Hence
James deemed it needful to admonish them, that too many
ought not to obtrude themselves as teachers; that none
ought inconsiderately to speak in their public meetings, but
that each should recollect the responsibility he incurred by
such a procedure; James i. 19 ; iii. 1, 2.
As to the doctrine of James and the mode of its exhibition
in this epistle, we find nothing whatever which stands in
contradiction to the more fully developed doctrine of the
New Testament, as we shall show when we come to treat of
doctrine ; and the Christian ideas actually presented in this
epistle are evidently in unison with the whole extent of
Christian truth. But the contents of the Christian system
are not exhibited separately in all their details; what is
purely Christian is more insulated ; the references to Christ
are not so predominant and all-penetrating as in the other
epistles. Inferences to the Old Testament, though placed in
connexion with the Christian standing-point, are most frequent.
For the explanation of this phenomenon, to allege the pecu-
366 THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
liar standing-point of the persons addressed is not sufficient,
for a Paul, a John, or a Peter would certainly have written
to them in a very different strain ; we must rather seek the
explanation in the peculiar character of the writer himself.
We might hence infer (with Schneckenburger) that James
wrote this epistle at a time when Christianity had not
thoroughly penetrated his spiritual life, during the earliest
period of his Christian development; but it may be ques
tioned whether we are justified in drawing such a conclusion,
for no proof can be given that he enlarged his doctrinal views
at a later period. It is possible that he remained confined in
this form of imperfect doctrinal development, although his
heart was penetrated by love to God and Jesus. He still
maintained the character which belonged to him on his
original standing-point as a teacher of the Jews, as the guide
of his countrymen in passing over from the Old to the New
Testament. True it is, that much would have been wanting
to the church for the completeness of Christian knowledge, if
the statement of Christian doctrine by James had not found
its complement in the representations of the other apostles ;
but in this connexion it forms an important contribution to
the entire conception and development of Christian truth, and
furnishes all that can be expected from such a standing-point.
It was exactly this form of doctrine that secured for James
a long and undisturbed ministration among the Jews, and
many were led by his influence to faith in Christ ; but this
excited so much the more the hatred of the basest among the
party-leaders of the Jewish people, who sought for an oppor
tunity to sacrifice him to their rage. One of the most
impetuous among them, the high priest Ananus, who was
disposed to all the violent acts of party hatred, availed
himself for this purpose of the interval between the departure
of the Roman procurator Felix, and the arrival of his suc
cessor Albinus, about the year 62. He caused James with
some other Christians to be condemned to death by the
Sanhedrim as a violator of the law ; and in conformity with
that sentence he was stoned.1 But the better disposed among
1 We here follow the account of Josephus, Antiq. xx. 9, which
certainly is more credible than the legendary narrative of Hegesippus
in Eusebius ii. 23. How can it be supposed that the heads of the
Pharisaic party would have been foolish enough to demand of James,
and to suppose it possible that he would bear a public testimony against
Christianity? Nor can I be induced by what Credner has said in his
THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 3G7
the Jews were greatly dissatisfied with this proceeding, and
Ananus, on account of it, was accused to the new governor,
for which there was sufficient reason, as he had manifestly ex
ceeded the limits of the power guaranteed to the Jewish
Sanhedrim by the Roman law. See above, p. 55.
Einleituny, &c. p. 581, in which Rothe and Kern (see his Commentary
on the Epistle of James, published in 1838, p. 341) agree with him, to
give up the opinion I have here expressed. It would place the question
on a different footing, if the interpretation of the passage in Josephus
could be really proved. In that case, we must admit, that although the
history of the martyrdom of James was garnished after an Ebionitish
legend, yet the historical truth is to be discerned lying at its basis. But
this interpretation does not appear to me proved. The words of
Josephus, xx. c. 9, § 1, in which we include in brackets what is con
sidered suspicious by Credner and others, are as follows ; (he is here
speaking of the high priest Ananus) : — Kadifri vw&piov KpiTwv Kal
Trap a.y ay &v ets curb \rov af>f\<pbv 'IrjaoS rou \eyo/j.(vov Xpurrov, 'laKcafios
uvofj.a aura), Kal~\ TtJ'as [rrepous] o'S Trapavofj.rfO'dvTwv KaTriyopiav ironjcrd-
/JLCVOS irape'SajKe tevaQriao/j.ei'ovs' oaoi 8e fSoKOvv (Tri€iKf<rraroi ruv Kara
rfy ir6\LV eiVcu, Kal TO. irepl TOVS vop.ovs a.Kpt&t'is, ftapfus fytyKav
M TOVT$. Credner considers the clauses I have marked as the in
terpretation of a Christian, because Josephus as a Jew would not
have so emphatically prefixed the epithet a5e\</>oi/, £c., but rather have
placed first the proper name, and because he must rather have called
Jesus TOV tiitcaiov, and not left his readers in almost total darkness as to
the meaning of that very general epithet. But since James was best
known by that appellation, which gave him the greatest importance
whether in a good or bad sense, according to the standing-points of those
who employed it, since Jesus who was considered to be the Christ might
be presumed to be known under that title, both among Gentile and
Jewish readers, we have reason for thinking, that the person of the
brother of Jesus first presented itself to Josephus, and he mentioned
this before adding the designation of the proper name. When those
persons are mentioned who had been accused as violators of the law,
and whose condemnation had been blamed by the most devout of the
Jewish nation, this would certainly lead us to think of the Christians
who strictly observed the Mosaic law, and above all, we should refer
this to James. When Christians were persecuted as Christians, or as
opponents of the prevalent corruptions, the persecution would especially
affect James, who had the greatest influence among the Jews, and was
the firmest pillar of the Christian community. It is therefore in itself
probable, that the persecution excited by the high priest would fall par
ticularly on James. And if a Christian had interpolated this passage,
he would hardly have satisfied himself with only foisting in these words,
as a comparison with the interpolation of other passages, which relate
to Jesus himself, will convince us still more. In reference to the in
credibility of such traditions as those of Hegesippus respecting the
martyrdom of James, a comparison with the tales reported by Papias
about the death of Judas Iscariot will serve for a proof. Perhaps the
image of the martyrdom of Stephen suggested to the Ebionites their
method of forming the account of the martyrdom of James.
368 THE APOSTLE PETER.
CHAPTER II.
THE APOSTLE PETER.
FROM James we now proceed to the apostle Peter, who, as
appears from the course of historical development already
traced, forms a connecting link between the two most widely-
differing spheres of action and tendencies of Paul and James.
We must here take a brief survey of his situation and cha
racter in early life.
Simon was the son of Jonas, a fisherman in the town of
Bethsaida, on the western shore of the Sea of Gennesareth
in Galilee. The interest universally excited in this region
respecting the appearance of the Messiah, which seized with
peculiar force the ardent minds of the young, led him, among
others, to that divinely enlightened man John the Baptist,
\vho was called to prepare the way for that event. His bro
ther Andrew, who had first recognised the Messiah in Jesus,
imparted to him the glorious discovery. When the Lord saw
him, he perceived, with his divinely-human look, what was in
him, and gave him the surname of Cephas, Peter, the Rock.
These surnames, like others which Christ gave his disciples,
may be taken in a twofold point of view. The principal point
of view which, without doubt, the Redeemer had in the
imposition of this name, related to what Simon would become
in and for the service of the gospel. But as the influences of
transforming grace, always attaching themselves to the con
stitutional character of an individual, purify and ennoble it, so
in this instance, what Peter became by the power of the divine
life, was in a measure determined by his natural peculiarities.
A capacity for action, rapid in its movements, seizing with a
firm grasp on its object, and carrying on his designs with
ardour, was his leading characteristic, by which he effected so
much in the service of the gospel. But the fire of his power
ful nature needed first to be transformed by the flame of
divine love, and to be refined from the impurity of selfish
ness, to render him undaunted in the publication of the
gospel. By the natural constitution of his mind, he was
indeed disposed to surrender himself at the moment entirely
THE APOSTLE PETER. 3G9
to the impression which seized him, without being turned
aside by those considerations which would hold back more
timorous spirits, and to express with energy what would move
many minds ; but he was easily misled by a rash self-con
fidence to say more, and to venture more, than he could
accomplish ; and though he quickly and ardently seized on
an object, he allowed himself too easily to relinquish it, by
yielding to the force of another impression.
It was desirable that the first impression made on Peter's
mind should continue to act upon him in quiet, — on which
account Christ at first left him to himself; and when, by
repeated operations, everything in his disposition was suffi
ciently prepared, he received him into the number of his
disciples, who afterwards accompanied him everywhere. Peter
must often have heard him teach in the synagogue, and seen
him heal the sick. But all this would be only a preparation
for the last decisive impression, which was exactly adapted to
Peter's former mode of life, and his peculiar character. After
Christ had finished one of his discourses in Peter's vessel, he
desired him to let down his net for a draught. Although he
had toiled in vain during the whole of the preceding night,
yet he was quite ready to obey the command of the Redeemer,
a proof of the confidence he already placed in him ; and since,
after the various preceding impressions which he received of the
Divine in Christ, he was so astonished by the successful result,
— the sense of the dignity and holiness of the personage who
stood before him, as well as of his own unworthiness, so over
powered him, that he deemed himself not fit to be so near the
Holy One, — Christ took advantage of the state of mind thus
produced to draw him altogether to himself, and made this
instance of success in his worldly occupation, by which Peter
had been so wonder-struck, a symbol of the spiritual success
which would attend his future labours in his service.
We find many indications of Peter's constitutional dis
position in the intercourse of Christ with himself and the
other disciples. When many of those persons who had been
induced to join themselves to Christ for a length of time by
the impression of his miracles, at last, from the want of a
deeper susceptibility for divine truth, forsook him, Christ said
to the twelve disciples who still faithfully followed him, " Will
ye also go away ? " Peter testified of what they all felt, and
VOL. I. B B
THE APOSTLE PETER.
how deeply he felt the divine impression which the words of
Christ had made on his inmost soul, more than he could yet
distinctly apprehend, — that a divine life proceeded from his
words, and that those who received his sayings were made par
takers of a divine and blessed life enduring for ever. " To
whom shall we go 1 Thou hast the words of eternal life. We
believe, we know that thou art the Messiah of God." The
conviction that Jesus was the Messiah, which Peter here
expresses, was without doubt of a different kind than that
which only was produced by beholding the miracles he
wrought. It was a conviction deeply seated in his religious
and moral nature, which originated in his inward experience
of the divine intercourse with the Redeemer. Thus Christ
declared, when Peter said to him, " Thou art the Messiah, the
Son of the living God," Matt. xvi. 1 6, that this conviction was
produced on his heart by the Spirit of God, — that he spoke
not according to human opinion, but from the confidence of
divine excitement, — that not flesh and blood, but his Father
in heaven had revealed this to him. And since the conviction,
thus grounded in the depths of his disposition, that Jesus was
the Messiah, was the foundation on which the kingdom of
God rested, in allusion to this fact Christ called him the
Pv,ock, the Rock on which he would build his Church, which
was to exist for ever. There is, indeed, a personal reference
to Peter, but only on account of the faith he had confessed,
which forms the foundation of the kingdom of God. On
another occasion, when Christ announced to his disciples his
approaching sufferings, Peter felt impelled instantaneously as
it arose in his heart, to express the sentiment which all felt, but
hesitated to express, " That be far from thee, Lord ! " But here
the feeling of love to Him who was most fitted to kindle the
fire of love in the heart, expressed itself in a natural human
form so strongly, that Peter, with this state of disposition to
wards the cause of God, which requires the sacrifice of self, and
of whatever is dearest to the heart, could not be an instrument
in its service ; and hence the Lord addressed him with words
of severe rebuke, and assured him that, with such a disposi
tion, valuing the person of man higher than the cause of God,
he could not remain in his fellowship ; that by this disposi
tion he became a tempter ; Matt. xvi. We recognise the
same tendency to be carried away by the sudden impulse of
THE APOSTLE PETER. 371
feeling, and to surrender himself to the vivid impression of
the moment, when the Lord assured him that, on the night of
his Passion, all would forsake him ; the too confident Peter at
once exclaimed, " Though all men should forsake thee, yet
will not I ; I will lay down my life for thy sake." This over-
hasty self-confidence soon turned, as the Lord foretold, to his
disgrace, and gave occasion for bitter repentance. Yet this
false step, no doubt, served to advance him in that self-know
ledge which is the indispensable condition of true faith in the
Redeemer, and true knowledge of him, and thus to the whole
development of the Christian life. And the Lord forgave him
his sin ; he reminded him of it in a manner the most tender,
and yet piercing the very depths of his soul, by the question
thrice repeated, " Lovest thou me 1 " l and required from him,
as the proof of his love, the faithful discharge of his apostolic
calling, the care of his sheep.2
But it is this peculiar character of Peter, when transformed
by the divine life, with which we see him afterwards operating
as an organ of the Holy Spirit in the service of the kingdom
of God. We have already pointed out, in a former chapter,
what an important position he occupied in this respect at the
commencement of the Christian dispensation, until the ap
pearance of the apostle Paul, and subsequently as an inter
mediate point between his sphere of action among the Gentiles
and that of the older apostles among the Jews. Though his
1 We proceed here on the conviction, that the 21st chapter of John's
gospel, although not composed by him, contains a credible tradition.
2 It is indeed possible that these words referred personally to Peter,
in the sense that he was to take the lead in the guidance of the church,
as he it certainly was who spoke in the name of all, and who guided the
deliberations on their common affairs ; — and if the words are so inter
preted, a peculiar apostolic primacy is by no means committed to Peter,
but the position entrusted to him was only in relation to existing cir
cumstances, which he was peculiarly fitted to occupy by the xapia^a.
Kvptpv-iia-fus, which harmonised with his natural talents. But these
words may very probably be considered as a general description of the
vocation of preaching the gospel — which, from a comparison with the
parable in the 10th chapter of John, is very probable — and in this case,
they contain nothing personal in relation to Peter as distinguished from
the other apostles. Peter always appears as peculiarly fitted by his
natural character to be the representative of the fellowship of the dis
ciples, and hence he expressed what all deeply felt, and Christ particu
larly addressed to him those sayings which in their full extent related
generally to all genuine disciples.
372 THE APOSTLE PETEE.
nature, not yet thoroughly penetrated by the Divine, might
still at times disturb and mar his exertions by its peculiar
failings, yet the power of the divine principle of life within
him, his love and fidelity to the Lord, were too great to be
repressed by those corrupt tendencies, when the essential
interests of the kingdom of God were at stake. The effect
sudden impressions is shown in his conduct at Antioch (ante,
p. 210), but the subsequent history proves that, although Peter
might be hurried by the power of a sudden impression to act
in a way which involved a practical denial of principles which
he had formerly avowed, yet he could not be seduced to be
permanently unfaithful to these principles in his capacit}T of
Christian teacher, and so to lay the foundation of a lasting
opposition to Paul. On the contrary, he willingly allowed
himself to be set right by Paul, and, for the future, continued
firmly united to him in the bond of apostolic fellowship.1
From Peter's ardent zeal, and from what we know of his
successful efforts for spreading the kingdom of God till the
conversion of Cornelius, we may infer that, during that period
1 We can by no means agree in the opinion expressed by a
distinguished young theologian, Professor Elevert of Zurich, in his
Essay on Inspiration in the Studien der evangelischen Geistliclikeii
Wurtembergs, vol. iii. p. 72, that the old distinction for securing the
idea of inspiration between vitium conversationis and error doctrince is
wholly untenable, and therefore, the possibility of a mixture of error in
the teaching of the apostles must be allowed. When Peter, in conse
quence of a sudden over-hastiness or weakness, suffered himself to be
misled in reference to his Jewish fellow-believers, and to act in a
manner which corresponded rather to the prejudices of others, than to
his own better views, such a sudden practical error by no means justifies
us in the conclusion, that his own knowledge of Christian truth had
been eclipsed, and that his sounder views had entirely vanished. The
most we could infer would be, that at this instant, when overpowered by
impressions from without, he had no clear perception of the principles
on which he was acting. Had he indeed not repented of this sudden
false step arising from the fear of man, — had he hardened himself in
this moral delinquency, a permanent obscuration of Christian con
sciousness must have been the consequence, and, as the history of many
similar instances of backsliding exemplifies, a practical denial of the
truth would have been followed by a theoretical one; but this could
never come to pass in an individual in whom the spirit of Christ had
attained such a preponderance over the selfish principle. And thus we
are not at liberty to suppose, that Peter allowed the act into which he
had been hurried by the power of a sudden temptation, to establish
itself in his teaching, and so far to prevent or obscure his perception of
Christian truth.
TRADITIONS RESPECTING PETER. 373
of his life respecting which we have no information, he
extended still further the circle of his operations for the pro
pagation of the gospel. As he is not mentioned in the Acts
later than the account of the deliberations at Jerusalem l
recorded in the 15th chapter, it seems probable that the scene
of his subsequent labours lay at a distance from that city.
According to an ancient tradition,2 Peter published the gospel
to the Jews scattered through Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia,
Asia, and Bithynia. But this account has most probably
been derived only from a misunderstanding of the superscrip
tion of his first epistle.3 This epistle of Peter leads us rather
to suppose, that the scene of his labours was in the Parthian
empire, for as he sends salutations from his wife in Babylon,*
this naturally supports the conclusion, that he himself was in
that neighbourhood. And in itself, it is by no means impro
bable that Peter, whose ministrations related particularly to
the descendants of the Jews, betook himself to a region where
so many Jews were scattered ; and what we know of the early
spread of Christianity in those parts, serves to confirm the
opinion. Yet the fact that Peter exercised his ministry at a
late period in the countries composing the Parthian empire,
by no means renders it impossible that he laboured earlier in
Lesser Asia. Still it contradicts this supposition that, in the
Pauline epistles, in which a fair opportunity was given to
touch upon such a relation, we find no trace of Peter's residing
in the circle of Paul's labours ; this, however, we do not
adduce as perfectly decisive evidence. But we must attach
greater weight to the fact, that, in this epistle of Peter, there
is no reference to his own earlier presence among the churches
to whom it is addressed, though the object of this epistle must
have especially required him to remind them of what they
had heard from his own lips.
1 What Paul says in 1 Cor. ix. 5, of the travels of the apostles, and of
Peter's taking his wife with him, agrees with 1 Peter v. 13.
2 See Origen, t. iii. in Genes. Eusebius, iii.
3 Origen's expression is very doubtful ; /ce/cTjpuxeVai toutfv.
By a most unnatural interpretation, this has been supposed to mean
an inconsiderable town in Egypt, a Qgovgtov ^ov^v at that time,
Strabo, xvii. 1, although this small town existed as late as the fifth
century; see Hist. Lausiac. c. 25. The opinion of the ancients is
perfectly arbitrary, that, under this name, Rome was meant ; and there
is nothing against our supposing that an inhabited portion of the im
mense Babylon was still left.
374 THE FIRST EPISTLE OP PETER.
It appears then, that, after Peter had found a suitable field
of exertion in the Parthian empire, he wrote to the churches
founded by Paul and his assistants in Asia, an epistle, which
is the only memorial preserved to us of his later labours. All
the marks of its date unite in placing it in the last part of the
apostolic age, in the period subsequent to Paul's first confine
ment. We find Silvanus, one of Paul's early fellow-labourers,
in direct communication with Peter, which agrees very well
with our never meeting with the former as Paul's companion
after his last journey to Jerusalem. The Christian churches
to whom the epistle is directed, appear to us exposed to such
persecutions as first arose about this period. The Christians
were now persecuted as Christians, and according to those
popular opinions of which Nero took advantage, were looked
upon and treated as " evil-doers," (/caKOTroto), malefici). By the
seriousness and strictness of their daily conduct, and their
withdrawal from the public shows and other licentious
amusements, they rendered themselves obnoxious to the
hatred of the heathen populace ; 1 Peter iv. 4, 5 ; and if we
reflect on the circumstances in which these churches were
placed during Paul's first confinement, the design of the epistle
will at once be apparent. As these churches had to combat
with persecutions from without, so they were internally dis
turbed by those heretical tendencies of which we have spoken
in a former chapter. Since the propagators of these errors
accused Paul of falsifying the original Christian doctrine, and
had appealed to the authority of the elder apostles in behalf
of the continued obligation of the Mosaic law, Peter availed
himself of the opportunity for addressing these churches, in
order to establish them in the conviction, that the doctrine
announced to them by Paul and his disciples and companions,
of whom Silvanus was one, was genuine Christianity. These
churches consisted for the most part of those who had been
previously heathens, for such, in several passages, he supposes
his readers to be ; ii. 10 ; iv. 3. The superscription of the
epistle is not inconsistent with this fact ; for as Peter, by his
training and peculiar sphere of labour, was apt to develop
Christian truths in Old Testament images and comparisons,
he transferred the name of dicKnropa. to the true church of God
scattered among the heathen.
In reference to the internal and external circumstances of
THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 375
the churches, the object of this hortatory composition is two
fold; partly to ground them more firmly in the conscious
ness, that the source of happiness and the foundation of the
everlasting kingdom of God was contained in that faith in the
Redeemer which had been announced to them and received
by them into their hearts, — that the doctrine announced to
them was indeed the everlasting, unchangeable word of God,
and hence they were to aim at appropriating, with child-like
simplicity, the pure simple doctrine of the gospel delivered to
them from the beginning, and thus continually advance to
Christian maturity ; and partly it was the apostle's design to
exhort them to maintain their steadfastness in the faith under
all persecutions, and a corresponding course of conduct by
which they would shine forth in the midst of the corrupt
heathen world, and refute the false accusations against Chris
tianity and its professors.
Both these objects are pointed out by the apostle at the
close of the epistle, when he says, " The faithful brother
Silvanus is the bearer to you of this a short epistle consi
dering what I would gladly say to you, and which I have
written for your encouragement, and to testify that it is the
true grace1 of God, in the firm possession of which you stand
by faith."2 The unassuming manner in which the writer of
1 Grace, the grace of redemption, a description of the whole contents
of the gospel.
2 The words may be certainly taken to mean, that Silvanus was the
writer of the epistle, dictated by Peter, either in Aramaic or Greek ;
but in this case, a salutation from Silvanus would probably have been
added, especially since he must have been well known to these churches.
The possibility of the interpretation which I have adopted, is evident
from the phraseology which is adopted in the subscriptions of the
Pauline epistles ; and the use of the aorist, fyga^a allowing for the
epistolary style of the ancients, can prove nothing against it. It also
shows at once the design of the commendatory epithet, " a faithiul
brother." The words us Xo7^o/*ai, may indeed relate to what goes
before, for this verb is used by Paul in Bom. viii. 18; Kom. iii. 2{
2 Cor. xi. 5, to denote a subjective conviction, without the accessory
idea of any uncertainty in holding it. Peter might also wish to mark
the subjective of his own judgment, for it was precisely the peculiar
authority of Peter, to which many opposers of the Pauline school ap
pealed. But if Xo7ijbfuu is referred to what follows, it is equally a
mark of subjective judgment or feeling. That which he wrote was to
Peter, in relation to what he had in his heart to say to the churches,
only a little. Yet had he intended to express that sentiment, he would
rather have said 5i' b\iywv ws toyffo/uu.
376 THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER.
this epistle calls himself simply an eye-witness of the suffer
ings of Christ, and represents himself to the presbyters of the
churches to whom it is addressed, as one of their number,
one of the number of Christian overseers, bears with it the
impress of the apostolic spirit.
But such marks of genuine apostolic origin and character
are by no means visible in the second epistle extant under
Peter's name ; many traces of a contrary kind are to be found
in it, many marks of its apocryphal origin ; and as it is slightly
supported by external evidence, we have made no use of it as
a source of information for the biography of the apostle.1
1 The principal marks of the spuriousness of this epistle, are the
difference of the whole character and style compared with the first, and
the use here made of the epistle of Jude, which is partly copied and
partly imitated. The author assumes, that he is writing to the same
churches as those to whom the First Epistle of Peter is addressed, and
yet what he says of his relation to his readers, is at variance with that
assumption, for, according to the Second Epistle, they must have been
persons who had been personally instructed by the apostle Peter, and
with whom he stood in a close personal connexion, yet this was a rela
tion in which the churches to whom the First Epistle was addressed
could not stand. The solicitude with which he endeavours to make
himself known as the apostle Peter, betrays an apocryphal writer. The
allusion to the words of Christ, John xxi. 18, in i. 14, is brought
forward in an unsuitable manner. In order to distinguish himself
as a credible witness of the life of Christ, he appeals to the phenomena
'at the transfiguration. But it certainly is not natural to suppose that
one of the apostles should select and bring forward from the whole life
of Christ, of which they had been eye-witnesses, this insulated fact,
which was less essentially connected with that which was the central
point and object of his appearance ; the apostles were rather accustomed
to claim credit as witnesses of the sufferings and resurrection of Christ.
Also the designation of the mountain on which the transfiguration
occurred as " the holy mount," betrays a later origin, since we cannot
suppose that the mountain usually so denominated, Mount Zion, was
intended. Among the circumstances that excite suspicion, is the
manner in which the same false teachers, who, in the Epistle of Jude,
are described as actually existing, are here represented with prophetic
warning, as about to appear. The doubts respecting the second coming
of Christ, occasioned by the expectation of the occurrence of that event,
in the first age of the church, and the disappointment of that expecta
tion, leads us to recognise a later period. What is said of the origin of
the world from water, and its destruction by fire, does not correspond to
the simplicity and practical spirit of the apostolic doctrine, but rather
indicates the spirit of a later age, mingling much that was foreign with
the religious interest. The mode of citing the Pauline epistles, con
firms also the suspicion against the genuineness of this epistle. A
passage from Rom. ii. 4, is cited in iii. 15, as if this epistle were
THE MARTYRDOM OF PETER. 377
Since the second half of the second century, a report was
generally circulated that Peter died a martyr under the
Emperor Nero at Rome.1 According to a later tradition,
when Peter was condemned to crucifixion, he scrupled, from
a feeling of humility, to be put to death exactly in the same
manner as the Saviour, and therefore requested that he might
be crucified with his head downwards, and his feet upwards.
Such a story bears on its front the impress of a later morbid
piety rather than simple apostolic humility. The apostles
exulted and rejoiced in all things to imitate their Lord, and
the tradition thus formed does not appear to have been
known to Tertullian, for though his peculiar turn of mind
would have disposed him to receive such an account, he says
expressly that Peter suffered in the same manner as Christ.2
With respect to the tradition according to which Peter at
last visited Rome, and there suffered martyrdom, — it does
not well agree with what we have mentioned above respect
ing his residence in the Parthian Empire, for since this
is supposed to have been after the Neronian persecution, and
since the martyrdom of Peter, according to ancient accounts,
must have happened at the same time as Paul's, Peter must
within a short period have changed the scene of his labours
from one very distant region of the globe to another. And
it appears strange that he should have relinquished his
labours in a region where so much was to be done for
the spread of the gospel, and betake himself to one at
so great a distance, where Paul and his associates had already
laid a good foundation, and were continuing to build on the
foundation already laid. But so many circumstances un
known to us might conspire to bring about such an event,
that with our defective knowledge of the church history
addressed to the same church. A collection of all the Pauline epistles
is referred to, and it is assumed, that Paul in all of them referred to
one subject which yet by no means appears in all. Paul's epistles arc
quoted as ygatyal, as one apostle would certainly not have expressed
himself respecting the epistles of another apostle, for this term in the
apostolic epistles is always used only to designate the writings of the
Old Testament. This epistle was probably forged by those who wished
to combat the gnostic errors, and the opinion broached by the Gnostics
of a contrariety between the apostles Peter and Paul, by the borrowed
authority of the former.
1 The first trace of this is to be found in Origen, Euseb. iii. 1. The
complete narrative in Jerome, de Viris Illustrib. i.
2 De Prescript. 36. Ubi Petrus passion! dominicoe adequatur.
378 TRADITION OF
of these times, what we have stated cannot be considered
a decisive evidence against the truth of the tradition, if
it can be sufficiently supported on other grounds. We can
also easily imagine a particular interest which would induce
Peter to change his scene of labour to Rome, the same
interest which was the occasion of his writing his first epistle,
that of healing the division which in many parts existed
between his own adherents and those of Paul. This division
would find a rallying point in the opposition between the
Gentile Christians and Judaizing elements in the church
at Rome, and the movements in the metropolitan church
would exert an influence over the whole church ; and this
might be a consideration of sufficient weight with Peter to
induce him to undertake a journey to Rome. We are called
upon therefore to investigate whether this tradition is ade
quately supported by credible witnesses.
The Roman Bishop Clemens appears as the first witness of
the martyrdom of Peter. If he expressly stated that Peter
was martyred at Rome, we should have incontrovertible
evidence and require no further examination. But such
an exact determination of the place is wanting. Yet it
cannot be concluded that Clemens did not know the name of
the place where Peter suffered martyrdom, for there was no
need of such particularity for his readers when he was
writing of an event which he might assume to be generally
known. It cannot be maintained, that when he was writing at
the place where Peter shed his blood as a witness of the faith,
and simply enumerating examples of steadfastness in per
secuted champions of the faith, he should feel himself bound
expressly to mention the scene of his last sufferings. Even
in commemorating Paul's martyrdom, we find no such phrase
as " here before our eyes," " in the city from which I am now
writing to you." It may appear strange that Clemens speaks
in such general terms of Peter as a person of whom he possessed
no precise information, * and on the other hand speaks in such
definite terms of Paul. This might justify the conclusion that
he had really no exact information respecting Peter's end, and
hence we might be allowed to infer that the scene of Peter's
labours was to the very time of his martyrdom at a distance
from Rome. 2 Yet on the other hand it may be said, that
1 Ovx *va, oi)5e Suo, d\\a irXeiovas vm$veyKf TTOVOVS xal ovrca fj.apTvpTJ(ras.
2 1 cannot consider as historically accredited what is narrated of the
PETER'S VISIT TO ROME. 370
Clemens, as one of Paul's disciples, was induced to speak
of him in more definite terms, and though Peter met
with the close of his labours at Rome, that Clemens could
not say much of his earlier conflicts. l The first person who
distinctly states the martyrdom of Peter at Rome is Diony-
sius, bishop of Corinth, who wrote in the latter half of the
second century. In his epistle to the church at Rome,2
he calls that and the Corinthian the common planting
of Peter and Paul. Both had planted the church at Corinth,
and had equally taught there. In the same manner they
had both taught in Italy and suffered martyrdom at the
same time. Here we find a definite statement of the martyr
dom of Peter at Rome, though blended indeed with many
inaccuracies. Dionysius does not absolutely say that Peter
and Paul taught at Corinth at the same time, which, in refer
ence to the time before the first confinement of Paul at
Rome, certainly cannot be admitted, and, in reference to
the time after that event, can hardly be credited. But at
all events, he is not correct in terming the Corinthian church
the common planting of the two apostles. For, supposing
that the tradition of Peter's journey to Rome is credible, it
might happen that, after the first confinement of Paul, he
visited Corinth, but he could do nothing towards founding
a church which already had been established there. Perhaps
this whole account proceeded from misunderstanding the
references to the apostle Peter in the First Epistle to
the Corinthians, partly from tracing the origin of this
ccdesia apostolica from the two most distinguished apostles.
The same remark will apply to the church at Rome. And
according to what we have stated above, Paul came from
Spain as a prisoner to Rome, and could not have appeared
there as a teacher in conjunction with Peter.3 But this
connexion between Clemens and Peter, in legends such as the Clemen
tines, which bear the impress of being framed to answer a certain purpose.
1 Frederick Spanhcim, and lately Bauer, have endeavoured to prove
too much from the manner in which Clemens here expresses himself.
2 Eusebius, ii. 25.
3 The passage in Dionysius has been explained by Dr. Schott in his
"Examination of some chronological Points in the History of Paul,"
Jena, 1832, p. 131, so as to remove this difficulty. In the sentence
d/j.oia}s 5e Kal fls Tr)V '}Ta\iav dyuocre 8i8d£avTfS, Ipaprvpriaav Kara. r6v at/rov
ov, — 6p.6fff may be so understood, that only the equal extension of
380 TRADITION OF
inaccuracy in the representation of events long past, in
which Dionysius allowed himself to be guided more by
uncertain inferences than by historical traditions, cannot be
employed to weaken the weight of his deposition respecting
a fact not strictly connected with the other points, and
on which he could easily obtain certain information from his
contemporaries. We have no sufficient ground to deny that
Dionysius, in what he says of Peter's martyrdom at Rome,
followed an ancient credible tradition, although he falsified
his report to a certain extent by the circumstances with
which he arbitrarily connected it. From his times, this
account appears the unanimous tradition of ecclesiastical
antiquity. The graves of the two apostles were pointed out
at Rome, as the Roman presbyter Caius, at the end of
the second century, appeals to them ; but yet these graves
do not furnish incontestable evidence. When the report was
once set afloat, the designation of the locality where the
apostles were buried would easily be added. Even by Caius
the rnisstatement is made, that both the apostles were the
founders of that church.
This tradition would be more deserving of credit, notwith
standing a defect of positive historical evidence, if its origin
could not in any way be easily accounted for. We cannot
account for it from the attempt to place on a sure basis, the
authority of the Cathedra Petri in Rome, for this tradition is
more ancient than the attempt to secure to the Cathedra Petri
at Rome a decisive authority in matters of doctrine ; such an
attempt, which it is difficult to deduce only from the transfer
ence of the homage paid to the urbs to the ecclesia urbis,
would rather presuppose the existence of the tradition. Since
the pretensions of the Roman church were not universally
acknowledged, but in many quarters met with opposition,
they will not serve to explain how it came to pass, that such
a tradition designedly propagated by Rome, was everywhere
so favourably received. But in truth, many other circum
stances combined to give rise to this report and to promote
its circulation. As Peter concluded his labours in a region
their labours in Italy may be intended by it ; but does not the repeti
tion of 6[j.oicas, the distinguishing of this word from oVotre, and the com
parison with the Kara rov avrov naipov, of the martyrdom of both, favour
another interpretation ?
PETER'S VISIT TO ROME. 381
so separated from connexion with the Roman empire, there
would be the greater temptation to fill up the gaps of authen
tic history by hearsays and legends. The practice of repre
senting Peter as the victor over Simon Magus, in the contest
for the simple faith of Revelation, gave rise to manifold
legendary tales about his travels, such as the story of his
earlier residence in Rome under the emperor Claudius, and
the disputation he there held with Simon. And besides, it
seemed suitable that the church of the metropolis of the
world should be founded by the two most distinguished
apostles, who had also founded the Corinthian church, and be
signalized by their death ; it was also thought desirable to be
able to present the cooperation of these two apostles in the
church, to which, as the church of the metropolis, all eyes
were turned, in contrast with the attempts of the Judaizers,
as well as of the abettors of Gnosticism, to establish the ex
istence of a decided opposition between the two apostles.
When after the Apocalypse came into circulation, it was
usual to designate the imperial city by the name of Babylon,
as the stronghold of the heathenism which opposed the king
dom of God, this name as it occurred in the First Epistle of
Peter, was naturally applied to Rome, and thus, too, an argu
ment was found for the belief of that apostle's visit to Rome.
The confounding of Marcus, who is mentioned in that epistle
as a son of Peter,1 with the other Marcus, known as the com
panion of Paul and Barnabas, and the author of one of the
gospels, was the occasion of placing him in the same relation
to the apostle Peter as that in which Luke stood to Paul.
Although the origin of the story of the journey of the
apostle Peter to Rome, and of his martyrdom there, may in
this way be in some measure explained, yet the high anti
quity of the tradition, which can be traced back to the very
boundaries of the apostolic age, presents an objection of great
weight to this hypothesis. Papias, the bishop of Hicrapolis,*
1 As we can find no reason for taking the word vMy in a spiritual
sense, and as we more naturally understand the word trwtK\fKTi) of
Peter's wife, than of a personified church, especially as we know that he
was married and was accompanied by his wife on his travels, we may
refer this to an actual son of I'eter. Tradition says expressly that Feter
had children. Uerpos *al &i\unros tiraiSoTronlffavro. Clemens, Stromat.
iii. 448.
2 Euticb. Hist. Evcl. iii. 39.
382 TRADITION OP
who appeals to an oral tradition of an individual belonging to
the apostolic age, the presbyter John, reports, that the Gospel
of Mark x was composed by the same person who accompanied
Peter as an interpreter, for the purpose of preserving in
writing what he had heard Peter narrate in his public ad
dresses, 2 and what had been impressed on his own memory.
Now, it is evident that this account (whether it relates to
that Gospel of Mark which is still extant, or to a lost original
document of the evangelical history, which served for its
basis) cannot be true in its full extent; for how can we
suppose, that Mark the nephew of Barnabas, who at all
events must have come when young to Jerusalem, and lived
there in company with the apostles, could have first planned
his evangelical narrative according to what he heard at a
much later period, incidentally from the preaching of Peter1?
This account therefore is suspicious ; but may it not be so
far true, that Mark accompanied the apostle Peter to Rome,
and acted there as his interpreter, for those persons who were
familiar only wdth the Latin language? Yet after all, it is
difficult to explain how such could have existed so early,
unless there had been a tradition that Peter had left the
scene of his labours in the Parthian empire at a later period,
and visited Rome, — especially since what Papias says rests
on the report of a man in the apostolic age. As Silvanus,
the early companion of Paul, joined Peter in the Parthian
empire, so Mark might likewise remove thither from Lesser
Asia, Coloss. iv. 10, and travel with him to Rome, although
he was not the Mark whom Peter mentions in his first
epistle. There is an. ancient tradition preserved for us by
Clemens of Alexandria, that when Peter saw his wife led to
martyrdom, he called out to her, mentioning her name, 3 " 0
1 Although the marks attributed by Papias to the Gospel of Mark,
do not agree with the form in which it has come down to us, it does not
follow that Papias referred to another document ; for in such a descrip
tion of the qualities of a book lying before him, much depends on the
subjective judgment, and we certainly cannot give Papias credit for the
talen-t of acute and accurate observation.
2 See above, p. 95.
3 4>a(Ti 7* ovv TOV /u.aitdpiov Tlerpov Qtaaa^vov T-ffv O.VTOV 7 wcu/ca o,yoiJ.£Vi}v
TT\V e7ri Qdvarov, ^o6rjvai^v rrjs /cA^<rea>s xa/H^Kal rrjs ds olnov cu/a/co(ui57js]'
e7ri<f)cavf]<rai 5e eu ^aAa irpo<TTpeirTiKws TC KO.\ Trapa/cArjTi/cws e£ 6vo/J.aros
irpoae'nrovTa- jue/wifrfau ai-rfj TOV icvpiov. Clem. Alex. Strom, vii. [vol. iii.
p. 253, ed. Klotz. Lipsise, 1832.] The words I have enclosed in brackets
PETER'S VISIT TO ROME. 383
remember the Lord!" We have no reason for casting a
doubt on the truth of such a simple tradition. But that
characteristic traits of this kind were in circulation, agrees
best with the supposition that his last years were not spent
in the Parthian empire, between which and the Koman there
was little intercourse. In the existing circumstances of the
Parthian empire in reference to the mixture of native and
foreign religions, it would be difficult to account for the
martyrdom of a Christian woman. Hence, we are led to
refer it most naturally to the effects of the Neronian perse
cution at Home.
are difficult, whether we understand by them that his wife, before she
was led to death, came home once more, and then was thus addressed
by Peter, or, more naturally, that she would be restored to him again,
being redeemed from death. Yet, in the connexion there are great
difficulties in either interpretation, and we must rather understand the
words of a return to her heavenly home, if the reading be correct, and
we ought not (which yet I do not venture to maintain) to read OIKOV
ovpdviov.
BOOK V.
THE APOSTLE JOHN AND HIS MINISTRY AS THE CLOSING POINT
OP THE APOSTOLIC AGE.
THE ministry of the apostle John reaches to the limits of the
apostolic age. He was the son of Zebedee, a fisherman (pro
bably wealthy), 1 in the small town of Bethsaida or Caper
naum, on the western side of the Sea of Gennesareth in
Galilee. Many eminent men in all ages who have been great
blessings to the church, have been indebted to their pious
mothers for the first excitement of their dispositions to piety
and the first scattering of the seeds of religion in their hearts,
and this appears to have been the case with John.2 The
1 As we may conclude from Mark i. 20.
2 Compare Mark xv. 40, xvi. 1, and Matt, xxvii. 56. If an opinion,
advocated with great acuteness and learning by Wieseler in the Studien
und Kritiken, 1840, ill. p. 648, could be established, it would show that
Salome and John were closely connected with Christ by the bonds of
relationship. According to this view, not three women (as has hitherto
been supposed), but four, are named in John xix. 25 ; the Mary the
wife of Cleopas must be identified with the sister of the mother of Jesus,
but is quite a different person. Hence it follows, that we have to search
for the name of the remaining sister of the mother of Jesus. Now,
since in Matt, xxvii. 56, Mark xv. 40, besides Mary of Magdala, and
Mary the mother of James and Joses = the wife of Cleopas, Salome
also, or the mother of the sons of Zebedee, is named as present at the
crucifixion, it would appear that the sister of Mary the mother of Jesus,
whose name is not given by John, can be no other than Salome, his own
mother. Thus the difficulty of the same name belonging to both sisters
is entirely obviated. It would also follow that, in fact, James the son
of Alpheus, or Cleopas, was not the sister's son of Mary the mother of
Jesus, (consequently, not his cousin;) and this would furnish fresh
proof for our supposition, that James the brother of the Lord was not
identical with the apostle. But the manner in which (John xix. 25)
Mary the wife of Cleopas is mentioned without any connective particle,
appears to me to imply that these words are only in apposition to dis
tinguish the (otherwise) unnamed sister of the mother of Jesus. If the.
sister of the mother of Jesus, according to one of her names, was then a
universally known person in the circle in which John wrote his gospel,
] could then more easily conceive, that, by that collocation of the words,
THE APOSTLE JOHN. 385
manner in which his mother Salome united herself to the
company which was formed round the Saviour leads us to
attribute to her the predominance of a pious disposition, and
from the petition which she made to the Redeemer, we may
conclude, that her mind was filled with the expectation of
the approaching manifestation of the Messiah's kingdom, an
expectation which had been so vividly excited in the devout
part of the Jewish nation, by the predictions of the prophets
and the exigencies of the age : we may therefore imagine how
strenuously she endeavoured to inflame her son's heart with the
same earnest desire. The direction thus given to the mind of
the youth impelled him to join John the Baptist, by whose
guidance he was first led to the Saviour ; John i. 37. In his
company he spent several hours,1 but Christ wished not to
bind him to himself at once. He allowed him to return for
the present to his usual occupation. He drew him, like Peter,
gradually into closer communion with himself, and his opera
tions on his mind were intended to call forth an anxiety for a
such an ambiguity might be occasioned ; but I do not believe that such
a supposition is justifiable : and was it not to be expected from John,
that though he had not mentioned the sister of the mother of Jesus by
name, he yet would have pointed her out more definitely as the mother
of the disciple whom Jesus loved 1 Also, it does not seem probable to
me, since the relationship of John to Jesus would be so important for
explaining the early and peculiar connexion in which he entered with
Christ, that no trace of it should make its appearance in the narrative
of our gospels, where there was so often an opportunity of mentioning
it. The origin of later accounts of such a relationship between the
apostle John and Christ, may be easily explained without the suppo
sition of an historical foundation.
1 In order to know the length of time spent by John in this first
interview with the Redeemer, we must determine the mode of com
puting the hours adopted in John's Gospel. According to the commonly
received mode of reckoning, it could not have been more than three
hours; and then it is remarkable that John should say, "they abode
with him that day," of which only so few hours were left. On the con
trary, if, like some of the older writers, (see Wolfii Curce on John xix.
14.) and more recently Rctteg (in the Studien iind, Kritiken, 1830,
part i. p. 106), we suppose that John adopted the Roman mode of count
ing the hours from midnight, the length of time would be from ten in
the morning to sunset. Yet the words of John, as a more negligent
mode of expression, may be understood according to the common inter
pretation; and the passage in John iv. 6, favours our thinking that he
reckoned time in the usual manner. And, in itself, it is more pro
bable that the first impression which the Redeemer made on John's
mind resulted only from a short interview.
VOL. I. CO
386 THE APOSTLE JOHN.
more intimate connexion. And when he had for some time been
wishful after an abiding nearness to Him who had wrought
with such power on his inmost soul, when the call at last was
issued, Matt. iv. 22, he was ready at once to forsake all and
follow Him. What distinguished John was the union of the
most opposite qualities, as we have often observed in great
instruments for the advancement of the kingdom of God, —
the union of a disposition inclined to silent and deep medi
tation, with an ardent zeal, though not impelling to great and
diversified activity in the outward world ; not a passionate
zeal, such as we may suppose filled the breast of Paul before
his conversion. But there was also a love, not soft and
yielding, but one seizing with all its might, and firmly re
taining the object to which it was directed, vigorously repelling
whatever would disgrace this object, or attempt to wrest it
from its possession, and this was his leading characteristic.
Yet this love had a selfish and intemperate tincture, of wrhich
we have several instances, as when he wished to call down
divine judgments on the Samaritans, who had not shown due
honour to the Saviour ; and when he expressed his displeasure
that some persons who had not united themselves to the dis
ciples of the Lord, had performed similar miracles to then-
own by calling on his name ; and when his mother, in
concert with her two sons, presented a petition to Christ for
stations of eminence in his kingdom. Probably the title
" Son of Thunder," which the Redeemer bestowed upon him,
related not less to his natural temperament than to what he
became by its purification and transformation in the service
of the gospel. But this ardent love with which he devoted
himself wholly to the service of the Redeemer, became now
the purifying principle of his whole being, while he sought to
form himself on the model of that holy personality. And
hence he could receive the image of it on the side which
corresponded with his peculiarly contemplative mental ten
dency, and reproduce it in a living form.
John was certainly distinguished from James the brother of
the Lord, in this respect, that from the first his communion
with Christ was independently developed on the peculiar basis
of Christian consciousness ; the fountain of divine life whicli
had appeared among mankind, became at once the central
point of his spiritual existence : yet he did wholly agree with
THE ATOSTLE JOHIf. 387
Paul, for his Christian consciousness was not formed in direct
opposition to an earlier and tenaciously held Judaism. His
whole character and mental formation disposed him to a
different development. The mystical contemplative element
which finds its archetype in John, is more prone to adopt
outward forms (attributing to them a spiritualized, elevated
meaning) than to disown them, and John, whom Judaism had
led to the Saviour as its ultimate object, found no difficulty in
employing the forms of the Jewish cultus as the prefiguring
symbols of his Christian views. It was not expected, therefore,
from him that he should, like a Paul, abolish those forms
with which the Christian spirit was yet enveloped.1 Though
John (Gal. ii. 9) appears as one of the three pillars of the
church among the Jewish Christians, yet it never happened
that they appealed to him as to Peter and James ; but it may
be explained from the peculiar standing-point and character
of this apostle, and serves to set in a clear light his relation to
the contending parties. Hence also we gather, that though
1 Irenaeus, after taking a sound survey of the process of development
of the Christian church, says: "Hi autem qui circa Jacobum Apostoli
(among whom he also ranks John) gentibus quidem libere agere per-
mittebant, concedentes nos Spiritui Dei. Ipsi vero perseverabant in
pristinis observationibus." And a little afterwards, '* Religiose agebant
circa dispositionem legis," iii. 12. But what Polycrates, Bishop of
Ephesus, says of John, in his letter to Victor, Bishop of Rome, in
Euseb. v. 24, os £ytjnfdi| lepeus r6 irf-raXov irt<j>opr]K'jts, is untrue if taken
literally, as it insinuates something far beyond the presumption that
John was a faithful observer of the Jewish law so long as he remained
at Jerusalem. It would follow that he had held the office of High Priest
among the Jews, for this ir4ra\ov = irnn ^r, the golden front-plate,
which was one of the distinctive insignia of this office. Such a pre
sumption would, however, be in contradiction to history and all his
torical analogy. Nor can Polycrates himself, however credulous we may
think him to have been, have meant it. It is moreover clear from the
context, that he affirms of John only such things as would be consistent
with his Christian standing-point. Or, are we to assume that John, as
the President of all the Christian communities in Lesser Asia, adopted,
as a symbolical token of his position in the guidance of the Church, tho
insignia of the Jewish High Priest] This would be in direct contra
diction to the apostolic, and especially the Johannean views, for these
included the acknowledgment of the sole high-priesthood of Christ, and
the universal priesthood, founded upon it, of all believers. Polycrates,
therefore, could have said this of John only with a symbolical reference,
whether he intended to denote by it what he had suffered for the con
fession of the Christian faith, or the place which he occupied at the head
of the guidance of the church.
388 THE APOSTLE JOHN.
John had formed a scheme of doctrine so decidedly marked,
and though in relation to the other great publishers of the
gospel, he might have formed a party who would have attached
themselves particularly to him, and principally or exclusively
have valued his idea of Christianity, yet in the Pauline age,
we see no Johannean party come forward by the side of the
Jacobean, the Petrine, and the Pauline. The peculiar doc
trinal type of John was also of a kind little suited to find ac
ceptance with the peculiar tendencies of the Jewish Christians
in Palestine, and its influence would be more powerfully felt,
where a Christian element had already combined itself with
the form of the Grecian mind.
Thus John disappears from piiblic history, till he was led
by the divine call to other regions, where the minds of the
people were already prepared for his peculiar influence, and
where the deep traces of his operations, undeniable to every
one capable of historical investigations, were still visible far in
the second century. After the martyrdom of Paul, the be
reaved scene of his labours, so important for the development
and spread of the kingdom of God, and exposed to so many
polluting and destructive influences, required above all things
the guiding, protecting, and healing hand of apostolic wisdom.
The Epistle of Peter to the churches in that region, and the
journey of Silvanus thither, show how much this necessity
was felt. It is probable, that John was called upon by the
better part of the churches, to transfer the seat of his activity
to this quarter. All the ancient traditions, which may be
traced back to his immediate disciples, agree in stating that
Lesser Asia was the scene of his labours to the end of the first
century, and Ephesus its central point.
The constitution of the churches of Lesser Asia, as it
appeared soon after the age of John in the time of Polycarp,
Bishop of Smyrna, was altogether different from that which
originated in the Pauline age, in which these churches were
founded, and we are obliged to presuppose some intervening
influences by which this alteration was produced. Originally
these churches formed, as we have seen above, a pure opposition
against the Jewish-Christian form of cultus. They had no
day excepting Sunday devoted to religious celebration, no kind
of yearly feast ; but afterwards we find among them a paschal
feast transferred from the Jews, and receiving a Christian
THE APOSTLE JOHN. ' 389
meaning, though imitating the Jewish reckoning, as to the
time of its celebration, to which probably a feast of Pente
cost was annexed, and in their disputes with the Roman
church they appealed particularly to a tradition originating
with this apostle. Now we can readily imagine that the
fourteenth day of the month Nisan,1 on which he was an eye
witness of the sufferings of Christ, would excite a deep interest
in his Christian feelings. It is self-evident how those Jewish
feasts, which had gained a new importance for him by their
association with those great facts of the Christian faith of
which he had been an eye-witness, and which he had been
wont to celebrate with Christian devotion, might be intro
duced by him into these churches founded on Pauline prin
ciples.
From the state of the church at that time in these parts,
it may be concluded that John must have had to endure many
conflicts, both from within and without, in his new field of
labour. After licence had once been granted under Nero to
public attacks on the Christians, persecutions were carried on
in various parts. In lesser Asia, many circumstances com
bined, then as in later times, to excite a more vehement
persecution : fanatical zeal for the ancient idolatry — the dan
ger which threatened the pecuniary interests of those who
were gainers by the popular worship, from the rapid progress
of Christianity — the hatred of the Jews widely scattered
through Lesser Asia, who blasphemed Christianity, and stirred
up the heathen populace against it. Hence in the Apocalypse
the rebukes uttered against the synagogues of Satan, against
those who " say they are Jews, but are not and do lie ;"
Rev. iii. 9. The civil wars and the universal misery that
followed, contributed still more to excite the popular fury
against the qnemies of the gods, to whom they readily ascribed
the origin of all their misfortunes. Thus, indeed, the Apoca
lypse testifies (which was probably written in the first period
after John's arrival in Lesser Asia) throughout of the flowing
blood of the martyrs, and of the tribulation which threatened
Christians in prison, as well as of the fresh recollections of
Nero's cruelties. In the churches themselves, those conflicts
continued which we noticed at the close of the Pauline age,
1 The gospel to which Polycrates appeals in Eusebius, v. 24, may
certainly be that of John; see my Leben Jesu, p. 712.
390 THE JUDAIZING GNOSTICS.
and the seeds of discord and heresy then germinating had now
sprung up and advanced towards maturity. Falsifiers of the
original truth, who gave themselves out for apostles, had come
forth ; Rev. ii. 2. Various kinds of enthusiasm had mingled
with the genuine Christian inspiration, against which Paul
had already raised a warning voice. Pretended prophets and
prophetesses, who, under the appearance of divine illumi
nation, threatened to plunge the churches into errors both
theoretical and practical ; 1 John iv. 1 ; Rev. ii. 20.
In Lesser Asia, the most opposite deviations from the
genuine evangelical spirit sprang up together. On the one
side, the Judaizing tendency, as we have noticed it in the
Pauline age ; on another side, in opposition to it, the tendency
of an arrogant licentiousness of opinion, such as we have
noticed in the freethinkers of the Corinthian church, only
carried to greater lengths, and mingled probably with many
theoretical errors ; persons who taught that whoever pene
trated into the depths of knowledge,1 need no longer submit
to the apostolic ordinances, as he would be free from all the
slavery of the law, which freedom they understood in a carnal
sense, and misinterpreted to an immoral purpose. Such a one
need no longer fear the contact with heathenism or with the
kingdom of Satan; in the consciousness of his own mental
strength he could despise all temptations, partake of the meat
offered to idols, and indulge in sensual pleasures without
being injured thereby. In the Apocalypse these people are
called Nicolaitanes, whether because they were really the ad
herents of a certain Nicolaus,2 and that this name as a trans-
1 .Rev. ii. 24, they are described as such, (Strives %-yvuaav ra fiddea TOV
<ra.Tava, us \4yov<riv. But a doubt here arises, whether these persons
made it their peculiar boast that they knew the depths of the Deity ;
but the author of the Apocalypse, as if in mockery of their pretensions,
substitutes for the depths of the Deity the depths of Satan (as Ewald
thinks), — (for which interpretation the analogy may be adduced where
the synagogue of God is converted into the synagogue of Satan) ; — or
whether they really boasted that they knew the depths of Satan, and
hence could tell how to combat Satan aright, — that they could conquer
him by pride and contempt, — that they could indulge in sensual plea
sures, and maintain the composure of their spirit unaltered, — that the
inner man might attain such strength that it was no longer moved by
what weaker souls, who were still under the servitude of the law,
anxiously shunned, — and thus could put Satan to scorn even in his
own domains.
2 "We are by no means justified in confounding this Nicolaus with the
THE JUDAIZINO GNOSTICS. 391
ktion of the Hebrew cr^a, occasioned an allusion to the mean
ing of the name, and a comparison with Balaam, or that the
name was altogether invented by the author with a symbolical
design, a seducer of the people like Balaam.
With these practical errors were connected various theoretic
tendencies of a false gnosis, which since the close of the
Pauline age had extended more widely in opposition to one
another. We have noticed in the church at Colossse the adhe
rents of a Judaizing gnosis, who probably considered Judaism
to be a revelation from God communicated by angels, attached
a perpetual value to it as well as to Christianity, and pretended
that they possessed peculiar information respecting the various
classes of angels. To this Jewish angel-worship, Paul opposes
the doctrine of Jesus as the Son of God, the one head of the
church of God, on whom angels also are dependent, the
common head of that universal church to which men and
angels belong. He extols him as the being who has triumphed
over all the powers which would make men dependent on
themselves, over all the powers that set themselves in oppo
sition to the kingdom of God, so that men need no longer
fear them. He then infers the doctrine grounded on this, of
the high degree and freedom of the redeemed through Christ,
the children of God, who are become companions of angels in
the kingdom of God. But this elevated doctrine of the
dignity and freedom of Christians was perverted by those who
confronted the limited Jewish standing-point by a bold anti-
nomian gnosis, and affirmed that Judaism was to be despised
as the work of limited spirits ; that the sons of God were more
than these spirits and exalted above their maxims. They
thought themselves sufficiently exalted to insult these higher
powers, and to ridicule all law as a work of these limited and
limiting powers. With this was connected that reckless im
moral tendency which we have before noticed, and which
presented itself in opposition to the legal asceticism, which we
find connected with the Judaizing gnosis in the church at
Colossse. This is the tendency which is combated on the s
of its blended theoretical and practical errors, in the warning
Epistle of Jude addressed probably to the Christians in these
well-known deacon of this name. But in this case, it is more probable
that the Nicolaitanes of the second century originated from this sect.
392 THE JUDAIZING GNOSTICS.
parts.1 We see here how, from the Pauline ideas carried out
with one-sided extravagance and thus distorted into error, the
gnostic doctrine was educed of the opposition between Chris
tianity as the revelation of the Son, and Judaism as the
revelation of the Demiurgos and his angels. These two
opposite tendencies of gnosis developed themselves in this age
in various combinations.
The Judaizing gnosis found its representative in Cerinthus,
who forms the transition both from the common stiff carnal
Judaism to Gnosticism, and from the common limited Jewish
mode of thinking, which retained only the human in Christ,
to the gnostic which acknowledged only the divine in him,
only the ideal Christ.2 He agreed also with the common
1 This is, for the most part, the view developed by Schneckenburger
in his work .before mentioned. As to the author of this epistle, he
evidently distinguishes himself from the apostles, when he speaks of the
prophetic warnings of the apostles (v. 17), such as we certainly find in
Paul's writings ; we cannot explain the passage otherwise without doing
violence to it. The description of the state of the church is also such as
suits only the end of the apostolic age. It is therefore evident, that,
if the epistle be genuine, it cannot have been written by an apostle Jude,
who was a brother of James. It would likewise have been more natural
in this case, to have designated himself an apostle, instead of calling
himself a brother of James. Hence we should rather suppose him to
have been Jude, one of the brethren of the Lord. But why should he
not call himself a brother of the Lord, instead of " brother of James,"
since thus his personal authority would have added weight to his warn
ings'? It may be said that he omitted this title through humility. But
is this answer satisfactory 1 By the addition of various epithets, as d8eA$<)s
Kara crdpKa and SovAos 'Iriaov XpLffrov Kara Trvevfj.a, he might have pre
vented all misunderstanding, and removed all appearance of arrogance.
A similar objection may indeed be made in reference to James, who, in
his epistle, does not designate himself a brother of the Lord. But here
the case is altogether different. He does not distinguish himself by
any epithet expressive of consanguinity, — not out of humility, but be
cause he deemed it to be the highest honour to be a servant of God
and Christ. We may suppose another Jude as well as another James,
since the name Jude was so frequent among the Jews, and since,
according to Hegcsippus, there Avere many distinguished men of this
name in the church. But as the epithet " brother of James" is used
here as a distinction, it is most natural to refer it to that James who was
held in such high esteem. It might be said that he described himself
only as the brother of James, because he was so preeminent, and was
accustomed to be described by the name, a brother of the Lord. But
the manner in which elsewhere in the New Testament the brethren of
Christ are named together, does not favour this view of the matter.
2 See my Church History, vol. i. part 2, p. 675.
DOCETISM. 393
Jewish view of the Messiah in this respect, that he considered
Jesus as a mere man, that he denied the original indwelling
of the divine Being in him, and treated the entrance of the
Divine into his life as something sudden, by which, at his
solemn inauguration, he was made capable of discharging his
calling as the Messiah. But Cerinthus differed from the
common Jewish notions, that, in place of a peculiar inworking
of the divine power, by which the man Jesus was fitted for
his Messianic office, he supposed a new animation by the
highest spirit emanating from God, and forming the con
nexion between God and the Creation, the divine Logos.
This Spirit, representing itself to sensible appearance under
the form of a Dove, as a usual symbol of the Divine Spirit,
had settled upon him at his baptism ; he had revealed
through him the hidden Supreme God, the knowledge of
whom among the Jews had been the privilege of only a small
number of enlightened persons,1 through him he had per
formed miracles, but before the last sufferings of Jesus had
withdrawn from him, and left him to himself. As Cerinthus
in this manner held no original and indissoluble unity
between the Logos (the Messiah and Redeemer in a special
sense) and the Humanity of Jesus, but only a transient rela
tion, a connexion suddenly formed and as suddenly dissolved,
he thus granted only a very subordinate place to the
purely human in Christ. According to this view, the man
Jesus was only an accidental vehicle, of which the redeeming
Spirit the Logos made use, in order to be able to reveal him
self in humanity ; could the Logos without this medium have
made him .cognizable and perceptible to men, he would not
have made use of such an organ as the man Jesus. From
the same tendency, but more coarsely conceived, proceeded
another view, according to which it was believed, that a reve
lation of the Logos might be made in humanity without any
such mediation through a human being, which it was wished
to supersede. In place of the real human appearance of
Christ, only a semblance, a phantom was substituted in which
the Logos was enshrined. Everything that came under the
notice of the senses was explained as only a phantom, an
optical illusion, of which the higher etherial Being, who from
his nature could not be perceptible to the senses, made
1 The genuine efpairevraL
394 CERINTHUS.
that he might manifest himself to sensuous mortals. A
theory which already had been used for the explanation of
Theophanies and Angelophanies of the Old Testament,1 was
applied by those who held these views to the appearance and
life of Christ. At his transfiguration, said they, Christ mani
fested himself without that sensible appearance to his disciples,
who were rendered for the time capable of beholding him in
his true etherial form.2
Against such persons John was now called to defend the
announcement of 'Iriaovg Xptoroe iv trapxi. We have no reason
for calling in question the traditions respecting his conflicts
with Cerinthus. Ireneeus, amongst others, mentions as an
account given by the aged Polycarp, that on one occasion
when John was about to bathe, and heard that Cerinthus was
in the bathing-house ; he retired with abhorrence, and ex
claimed, " Surely the house will fall in ruins since the enemy
of the truth is there !" We can perfectly reconcile it with
his character, and find in it nothing unapostolic, if, in a
momentary ebullition of feelings naturally lively and ardent,
proceeding from holy zeal,3 he expressed in such strong terms
(in which, nevertheless, everything is not to be taken quite
literally) his displeasure against a man who threatened to rob
the churches, over whose salvation he watched with fatherly
care, of what was dearest and holiest to him, the foundation
on which his whole Christianity rested, and to destroy the
1 As, for example, Philo on Exod. xxiv., where the subject is the ap
pearance of the divine 5o£a, which may be understood partly of the
appearance of the angels by whom God revealed himself, partly of .the
symbolical appearances under which God represented himself to the per
ceptions of men ; rfj Sotcycret avrou fj.6vov KaL uVoArjil/ei So£r)s Geias us
tveipyaTdai rats TUV irapovrcav Siavoiais (pavTuaiav a<pi^<as 0fov, is IJKOVTOS
ets J3e£aiOTaT7ji' TT'KTTIV TUV fj.€ \\ovrccv vo/j.o6fTfia6ai (in order that men
might have the firm conviction that what was revealed to them pro
ceeded from God, he therefore thus operated on their consciousness, that
they believed that they saw himself), Tou 0eoD 5et/cviWos o-n-ep ffiov\eTo
So/cetV tlvui, irpos r^v rwv 6eufj.evcav /caTa7r\rj|ii/, fj.r) &v TOVTO, oirep trpaivtro.
— Philonis Opera, ed. Lips. 1829, vol. vi. p. 245.
2 A pure spiritual intuition was something wholly foreign to such
persons. Light and spirit were one and the same thing to them !
3 We must not allow ourselves to imagine, that the apostle, by the
sanctifying influence of the Divine Spirit, was at once dissevered from
all connexion with his former native character, as well as from the pecu
liar phraseology of his countrymen ; we must, with Jerome, recognise in
the apostle homo adhuc vasculo dausus infirmo.
JOHN'S BANISHMENT. 395
root of the Christian life ; still the pledge for the credibility
of this anecdote is very slight, and it may easily be attributed
to an extravagant hatred of heretics.1
According to a widely spread, ancient tradition, the apostle
John was banished to the Island of Patmos, in the ^Egean Sea,
by one of the emperors who was hostile to the Christians, but
by which of them is not ascertained.2 Only Irenaeus leads
us to suppose that Domitian was the emperor, for he says8
that John, at the end of Domitian's reign, received Revela
tions, which he committed to writing ; and since, according
to the Apocalypse, this must have happened in the Isle
of Patmos whither he was banished, it follows that he was
sentenced by that emperor. But owing to the uncertainty of
the traditions of that age, we cannot acknowledge this account
as sufficiently accredited ; it is indeed possible, that it pro-
1 Irenseus did not receive this account in his youth from the lips of
Polycarp, but could only appeal for the truth of it to what others had
heard from Polycarp, iii. 3, eia\v ol aK-rjKoorfs O.VTOV. The question then
is, whether the persons who reported it to Iremjeus are credible. We
know, indeed, that much of what Ircnneus reports as tradition, leaves on
it ths impress of falsehood. Thus he himself, ii. 24, appeals to the tes
timony of all the presbyters in Lesser Asia, who had been in the society
of the apostle John, that Jesus was about fifty years old. The difficulty
involved in this does not appear to me so easily removed as Credner
maintains in his Einleitumj, p. 225. The tradition of the presbyten,
according to the report of Irenreus, certainly appears not to have been
that Jesus first entered on his office as teacher at the commencement of
that riper mature age, which was required by the Jewish customs for
assuming such an office, but he received from their own lips the deposi
tion that Christ had taught in an age which was beyond the cetas juvt-
nilis, and approached to the senilis. If the passage is genuine in all its
extent, he expressly distinguished this age from the cetas perfecta
magiMtri, which was well known to him, in which Christ first appeared
in Jerusalem as a teacher. From his words, therefore, v;e must deduce
such a tradition as he supposed was understood by the presbyters. But
we can hardly suppress the suspicion of interpolation ; for however little
we are justified in depending on the critical judgment of Irennms, we
cannot reconcile it to a man of his powerful mind, that he who had shortly
before said that Christ had spent three years, from the beginning of his
thirtieth year to his death, in his office of teaching, could afterwards
attribute twenty years more to him.
2 See Tertull. Prescript, c. 36. Clemens, Qui dives salv. c. 42, speaks
of the return of John from exile, TOO rvpdvvov TtAetmjo-airos, without
specifying any name. Origcn, t. xvi. in Matt. § G, also uses the inde
finite expression, 6 'Pu/j.atuv &xcri\(vs.
3 V. 30.
396 AUTHORSHIP OF THE APOCALYPSE.
ceeded only from a peculiar interpretation of this obscure
book, and not from any historical testimony. And if the
Apocalypse contains certain marks of having been written
before this time, this opinion would at once cease to be tena
ble. As this is really the case, then certainly the Apocalypse,
which we cannot acknowledge as a work of the apostle/
1 We refer on this subject to the celebrated work of Dr. Llicke,
Versuch einer vollstdndigen Einleitung in die Offenbarung Johannes.
Bonn. 1832. (An Attempt at a complete Introduction to the Revelation
of John.) Much may be said in favour of the opinion of Dionysius of
Alexandria, that not the apostle John, but another Ephesian presbyter
of the same name, was the author of this book. I cannot deem perti
nent what Guericke has said against the existence of an Ephesian
presbyter named John, contemporaneous with the apostle, and must
agree with Dr. Lticke, that in the passage of Papias of Hierapolis, in
Eusebius, iii. 39, such a presbyter John is undeniably to be found ; for
since he classes the presbyter John with Aristion, who was not an
apostle, and distinguishes him from the apostles before named, among
whom John is also mentioned, no other person can be reasonably sup
posed to be referred to than a presbyter who was not an apostle. If we
assume that such a presbyter named John proceeded from the apostle's
school, or, with a peculiar character already formed, had become his
adherent and laid himself open to his influence, it will be easily under
stood, how such a person might compose a work, which, with much
that bore the impress of John's mind, would combine much that was
dissimilar, and would stand in the same relation to the genuine pro
ductions of that apostle as the Epistle to the Hebrews, written by an
educated Alexandrian of the Pauline theological school, stood to the
epistles of Paul. Thus it may be explained, how the book at so early
a period was held to be the apostle's composition, since a presbyter
little knoAvn was confounded with the apostle; especially at a period
when certain widely spread religious views, those of the Millennarians,
gave a bias for such a change of authorship. Yet we cannot admit this
supposition, if we find in the work several indications that the author
professed to be no other than the apostle John. Such an allusion
appears to be made in i. 2. Yet it is possible either so to explain the
words that they may refer to the testimony contained in the book itself
concerning the revelations and visions imparted to the author in the
Isle of Patmos, or the words may be applied universally to the whole
Publication of the gospel ; so the presbyter John, if. according to
apias, he was an immediate disciple of Jesus, could also, in reference
to this, say that he testified of what he had seen. And if it should
appear strange, that any other person than the apostle John should
designate himself simply a servant of Christ, and write with such con
fidence and earnestness to the churches, we may account for it, by his
believing that in the visions imparted to him he had received a com
mission to write in such a tone, although his personal standing-point
did not give him this importance in the Christian church. But if
another person had written this work under John's name, it does not
AUTHORSHIP 0V THE APOCALYPSE. 397
must have been written soon after the death of Nero.1 The
whole account of the banishment of the apostle John to the
appear that such a one, in order to deceive, has borrowed a reputation
not his own, for in this case he would have designated himself more
pointedly and decidedly as the person for whom he wished to be taken.
It is, then, more probable that the author, a disciple of John, by some
circumstance unknown to us, having devoted himself to write on a
subject which he had received mediately or immediately from the
apostle (as Schott and Lucke suppose), thought himself justified in
introducing John as the speaker. But in reference to the origination
and circulation of the work, if we place it in so early a period many
difficulties will remain. The most probable supposition is, that the
author, since he did not see his prophecies fulfilled in individual in
stances, although the ideas lying at the basis of his prophetic visions
contained truth, put a stop to the circulation of the book, — that after
his death, and the death of the apostle John, it was again made public,
and passed more easily as the work of the latter. This book appears
to assume the existence of such a scheme of doctrine as we find in
John's Gospel, and this seems to be at variance with the opinion of the
earlier origin of the Apocalypse. Yet the main outlines of John's
peculiar doctrinal scheme might have been formed very early, from the
mode in which he had received the life of Christ, according to his own
mental conformation, before he appeared in Lesser Asia as a teacher in
the Greek language ; he also might have already adopted the use of
such an expression as the term \oyos, to designate the indwelling
divine life of the Redeemer, according to the Aramaic word from which
it was taken, (as this term in the Alexandrian theosophic phraseology,
certainly arose originally from a translation.)
1 We remark in this book, the vivid impression which Nero's perse
cution of the Christians, his setting on fire part of the city of Rome,
arid especially his cruelties, had made on the minds of men. The story
that Nero was not really dead, but had retired to the Euphrates, and
would return again from thence (see my Church History, i. 137,) appears
here more fully delineated by a Christian imagination. He is the
monster to whom Satan gave all his power, who returns as anti-christ
and the destroyer of Rome, who will force all to worship his image.
The Roman empire at that time is set forth as the representative of
heathenism, and of ungodly power personified, and in this connexion,
under the image of the beast with seven heads (the seven Roman
emperors which would succeed one another till the appearance of anti
christ), Nero is signified as one of these heads (xiii. 3), which appeared
dead, but whose deadly wound was healed, so that to universal astonish
ment he appeared alive again. Nero reappearing after it had been
believed that he was dead, is the beast " which was, and is not, and
shall ascend out of the bottomless pit — and yet is," Rev. xvii. 8. Of the
seven emperors who were to reign until the appearance of anti-christ, it
is said that five have fallen — one (Nero's successor) is now reigning, and
the other is not yet come ; and when he comes, he must remain only a
short time, and the beast which was and is not, is itself the eighth and
one of the seven; (Nero as one of the seven emperors is the fifth, but
398 AUTHORSHIP OF THE APOCALYPSE.
Isle of Patmos may have been taken chiefly from the Apoca
lypse, and if this book can be shown not to belong to John,
the credibility of this account at once falls to the ground. Yet
here two cases are possible. If the Apocalypse proceeded from
another John than the apostle, if it was the composition of
the Presbyter John who was his contemporary at Ephesus,
the banishment to the Isle of Patmos would relate to him,
and not to the apostle of this name. And this change, by
which the Apocalypse was attributed to the apostle, would
have occasioned also the report of his banishment to this
island, although it is possible that the same outward causes
might have led to the banishment of both these distinguished
inasmuch as lie comes again as anti-christ, and founds the last universal
monarchy following the succession of the seven emperors, he is the
eighth.) Nero comes from the East, supported by his tributaries — the
ten kings (his Satraps, the ten horns of the beast) leagued with him to-
destroy Rome, and to make war on Christianity. The waters of the
Euphrates are dried up, to make a way for Nero with his ten Satraps,
xvi. 12, who, in his service, would burn and destroy Rome, xvii. 16.
All this marks the time in Avhich the Apocalypse must have been
written, the change of the emperor after Nero, while the image of this
monster was yet in vivid recollection, and men were disposed to depict
the future in magnified images of the past ; it also agrees with this date,
that the temple at Jerusalem is described as still in existence, i. 1, there
fore it must be before the year 70. But in this book, I am struck with
one contradiction, of which I have never met with a, satisfactory solu
tion. I shall rejoice to find that it has been explained by Dr. Liicke in
his Commentary, which I am anxiously looking for. In vii. 4, the whole
number of believing Jews is given as one hundred and forty-four
thousand ; and though this number may seem to be merely an assumed
round number, yet the number of Christians then existing among the
Jews might not differ very greatly from it. See Acts xxi. 20. Besides
these, an innumerable company of believers from all nations and tongues
appear before the throne of God, from which the former as Jews are
expressly distinguished. On the other hand, in xiv. 4, the hundred
forty and four thousand appear as the company of the elect from the
great body of Christians in the whole world, who present the model of
a holy life, as belonging to which a life of celibacy seems to be reckoned,
a view which Avould not accord with John's sentiments. Origen has
indeed noticed this contradiction, t. i. Joh. § 1, 2; but he avails him
self of the allegorical interpretation ; he thinks that in the first passage,
the Jews in a spiritual sense, the flower of Christians out of all nations
are to be understood ; this opinion, which others also have adopted,
cannot be correct, for it is evident from the other passage, that here only
believers of Jewish descent ar.e intended. As in the last quoted passage
I can find nothing predicable of Jewish Christians, I cannot satisfy
myself with the solution proposed by Credner in his Einleitung, p. 711.
JOHN'S WRITINGS. 399
teachers of the reliyio illicita. But if we admit that another
person wished to represent these revelations as those which
the apostle John had received, and if we hence infer, that in
order to personate John, he made use of certain passages in
his life, then the words in i. 9, in case they are to be un
derstood of a banishment to the Isle of Patmos,1 yet always
presuppose the fact of such an exile of the apostle, and we
must in this case place his banishment in the first period
after his arrival in Lesser Asia. But it is possible that, inde
pendently of the Apocalypse, such a tradition might be
spread that the apostle John was banished by the Emperor
Domitian (in whose reign such banishments to the islands on
account of passing over to. Judaism or Christianity were not
uncommon) to the Isle of Patmos or some other island ; and
it is possible that, from this tradition, the supposition was
formed that the Apocalypse ascribed to the apostle was
written during this period. Certainly we cannot refuse
to believe the unanimous tradition of the Asiatic churches
in the second century, that the apostle John, as a teacher
of those churches, had to suffer on account of the faith,
for which reason he is distinguished as a martyr in the
epistle quoted above of Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus.8
As in those regions where the general superintendence of
the church devolved on John, manifold attempts were made
to adulterate the Christian faith, as well as to disturb and
suppress the spirit of Christian love, it was the main object
of his protracted labours to maintain and propagate the
essence of the Christian faith and of Christian love, in oppo
sition to these injurious influences. Of this fact his writings
bear witness, which as they were produced under such cir-
1 Here everything depends on the interpretation of the words in
Rev. i. 9. The're is no necessary reference to sufferings on account of
the gospel. The words may be understood thus : " I was in the Isle of
Patmos for the purpose of publishing the word of God, and testifying
of Christ ; " which would be only saying that John had visited that
island for the sake of publishing the gospel. But a comparison with
VI. 9, roJj/ t(T(payiji.evwv Sict T^V \6-yov TOV 6eov, /col 5td TT)V fj-aprvpiav fy
f?Xov — x*i- 11> ^7OS ""I* fj.aprvpias — XX. 4, irfTrfXfKifffJi.efOS SicL TT)J/ fj.ap-
rvpiav, would rather lead us to understand the words of sufferings for the
profession of the faith, and the phrase avyKoivcavbs ev TT? 0Atyet favours
this reference.
2 The words of the epistle in En sob. v. 24, quoted above, Kal
400 JOHN'S GOSPEL,
cumstances, give indications of their tendency even where
they are not professedly and intentionally polemical. But as
his natural character was rather contemplative than argu
mentative, the controversial element in his writings is not so
decidedly indicated, nor developed with so definite and com
plete an outline as in the dialectic Paul. His controversial
style is more that of simple affirmation : from the fulness of
his heart he testifies his inmost convictions of the basis of
salvation, and he only marks occasionally, and points out with
abhorrence, the opposite of these convictions, instead of
entering into a full confutation. This especially applies to his
gospel. Since he wrote it among such churches and for such,
among whom a multitude of traditions respecting the history
of Christ, oral and written, must long have been in circu
lation, as Paul had assumed the existence of the memorials in
the exercise of his ministry, it might be expected that in his
historical representations he would take these circumstances
into account, and hence designed to give only a selection from
the evangelical history, such a one appeared to him best fit
ted to represent Jesus as the Son of God, from whom alone
men could receive eternal life, — to transfer to others the im
pression which the exhibition of his life had made upon him
self, as he declares at the close of his gospel, where he says,
" And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his
disciples, which are not written in this book. But these are
written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son
of God, and that believing (by the virtue of this faith) ye
might have life (true, divine, eternal life) through his name "
(through him as the Son of' God); xx. 30, 31. John accord
ingly made exactly this selection from the evangelical history,
in order to lead men to this faith, to aid, strengthen, and
uphold them in maintaining it. As in the application of the
idea of faith in John there were various shades of meaning,
all these varieties may be included in the words " that ye
may believe;" and as they are all embraced in the apostle's
design, those polemic references must be understood which
belong to the maintenance and confirmation of that faith.
And the delineation of the life of Christ in its unity, as it
proceeded from the heart and mind of John, must of itself
have been adapted to form a barrier against all those ten
dencies which disturbed the purity of Christianity. But as
JOHN'S GOSPEL. 401
this adaptation did not assume a direct polemical form, owing
to the peculiarity of John's mind, and the nature of the work
(that of simple narrative), it cannot be proved that he had
in his eye any special controversies. Even those which, from
his peculiar scene of labour, we might consider as most pro
bably aimed at, cannot be ascertained from the gospel itself
by any fair deduction ; as, for example, the declaration
o \6yos (rapt, lyivs.ro, which occurs in the introduction, and
marks the spirit of the whole historical development, as
describing the revelation of the divine life in human form,
is peculiarly suited to fbrin a refutation of the Cerinthian
gnosis. But there is no indication that John made this refu
tation a leading object of his gospel. In his narrative of
Christ's baptism, he might have had a strong inducement to
bring forward this controversy, as Cerinthus had affixed a
peculiar interpretation on this event, in accordance with his
general scheme. But in order to combat Cerinthus, he must
have commenced the history of Christ at an earlier period,
and have adduced those marks of the Divine, which accom
panied the birth of Christ. So also, though the manner in
which the purely human in Christ is developed throughout
the gospel is most decidedly opposed to Docetism, yet we can
find in it no trace of a designed and continuous refutation of
that heresy. The 6 \6yoQ aa.pl-, iyivtro is not in the least
suited for this purpose, for, taken by itself, it may be fairly
understood in the docetic sense, that the \6yoq itself became
<rdp£, since Docetism considered adp£ only as the apparent sen
suous guise in which the Xoyoc presented itself to eyes of
flesh. From this standing-point it might with propriety be
affirmed that the Xo'yoe became adp*, or presented itself in the
form of ffdp£. And in what John says of the flowing of water
and blood from Christ's side, it has been very erroneously
attempted to find a reputation of Docetism. This argumen
tation cannot affect the Docetse, for they would be as ready
to allow that the Roman soldier and John saw the blood and
water flowing, as to grant that Jesus presented himself to the.
senses of men in his life and passion, as is narrated in the
evangelical histoiy. They only denied the objective reality
of the sensuous perceptions, and this denial would apply to
one fact as well as to another. But John mentions it in that
connexion simply as a sign of the reality of Christ's death, in
VOL. I. D D
402 JOHN'S GOSPEL.
order thereby to establish faith in the reality of his resurrec
tion from the dead.
It is only in the introduction to his gospel that John
appears to design a special reference to men of any peculiar
mental tendency ; a reference to those who busied themselves
with speculations respecting the Logos as the Mediator be
tween the hidden God and the creation, — and to this class
those now belonged, who, after they had professed Christianity,
threatened to adulterate it by mingling with it their former
speculations. It cannot indeed be denied that John, inde
pendently of any outward reference, might have been induced,
by his Christian consciousness and by what Christ had de
clared respecting himself, to name him simply as the Logos.
As Christ represents his word or wrords (his Ao'yoe, hisp^ara,
his (puvrj) as the word of God himself, that thereby alone God
reveals himself to men, the fountain of life, the word of life ;
so John might thereby be induced to distinguish him as the
Word which is God, (the self-revealing Divine Being simply,)
the Word, the Source of life, and also the reference to a word of
God, by which God already in the Old Testament 1 had revealed
himself, might here be added, to point to its preparation in
the Old Testament, for the revelation of the Divine Being in
Christ. Meanwhile, the manner in which John places this Word
without further definition at the head of his whole representa
tion, makes it probable that, although he was perhaps led to
the choice of this expression from within, since he sought for
a new designation for a new idea, yet he connected with it an
idea already existing, and the train of thought with which he
opens his gospel serves to establish this opinion. John wished
to lead those who busied themselves with speculations respect
ing the Logos as the medium of all communicated life from
God and of every relation of God, the central point of all the
Theophanies — from their religious idealism, to a religious
realism, to the acknowledgment of God revealed in Christ —
to the consciousness that the Logos, as the divine fountain of
life, had appropriated human nature, and through it commu
nicated himself as the fountain of all true life and light to
1 See the remarks of Dr. Lange of Jena in the Studien und Kritiken,
1830, part iii. And this interpretation does not necessarily depend on
the other forced explanations of John's introduction, occasioned by the
peculiar dogmatic system of the estimable and highly esteemed author.
JOHN'S FIRST EPISTLE. 403
every one who only believed in this his human appearance.
Instead of wishing to investigate the hidden which no human
mind can penetrate, he called on every one to contemplate
Him who had revealed himself in human nature — to believe
and experience, as he testified that he had seen and experienced.
In the circular pastoral letter, which is distinguished as the
first of his catholic epistles, the apostle presents himself to us
under a fatherly relation to the churches of Lesser Asia, whose
concerns, during his residence at Ephesus, he regulated with
wakeful anxiety. Lucke has justly remarked, that the hor
tatory or paracletical element is by far the most conspicuous
m it, and the polemical holds a very subordinate place, which
agrees with John's peculiar style.1 This epistle contains
an admonition to the churches, to preserve the original faith
steadfastly and truly under the manifold temptations which
threatened them both from Jews and Gentiles, as well as
from various classes of false teachers— and an exhortation
to a course of life corresponding to their faith, — with a
warning against a formal Christianity, destitute of the true
Christian spirit, and a false confidence grounded upon it.
When we think of the churches in Lesser Asia, in the
transition from the Pauline age to that of John, as we have
described their state in the preceding pages, we probably
shall not be able (since they were exposed to manifold
diversified conflicts from within and without, and to dangers
of various kinds) to find a unity in the hortatory and con
troversial references of the beginning, nor can we point out
such a unity in the contents of the epistle itself without
a forced or too subtle an interpretation. Many passages
may appear to be exhortations to steadfastness in the faith,
amidst the allurements to unfaithfulness or apostasy presented
by the outward enemies of the church, both Jews and Gen
tiles. As to the latter, there were reasons for such exltorta-
tions, as the Christians were still closely connected by so many
ties to the Gentile world ; new members were added continually
to the Christian communities from the Gentiles, whose faith
required confirmation ; and since the first Nerouian persecu
tion,2 individual persecutions were constantly repeated, which
1 This epistle is in the apostolic sense a \6yos irapaK^vcus.
If we do not directly admit that this epistle was written in the last
part of the Johannean period, under the Emperor Xerva,
404 JOHN'S FIRST EPISTLE.
were dangerous to the weak in faith. Under the same head
may be classed the exhortation at the close of the epistle,
faithfully to preserve the knowledge of the true God revealed
through Christ as the source of eternal life, and to keep them
selves at a distance from idolatry. As it concerned the Jews,
the churches in Lesser Asia for the most part consisted of
persons of Gentile descent, but those who were formerly pro
selytes, and individual Jews, who were mixed with them,
formed a point of connexion, by which the Jews could exert
an influence on the churches, as we have remarked in the
Christian communities of the Pauline and even of the
Ignatian period. It might also seem, that when John
combated persons who refused to acknowledge Jesus as the
Messiah, he intended Jewish adversaries; but a closer exa
mination will suggest several objections to this view. As in
accordance with the prophetic expressions in the discourses of
Christ himself, it was expected that a special revelation of
the anti-christian spirit would precede the triumph of the
kingdom of God, which was to be effected by the second
coming of Christ, so John recognised as a mark of this
approaching crisis, that many organs of this anti-christian
spirit had already made their appearance. Now this could
not refer to Jewish adversaries, for these from the very first
were never wanting. The apostle moreover says of them,
" They have gone out from our midst, but they belonged not
in disposition to us ; for had they belonged in disposition to
us, they would have remained with us ; but by their outward
separation from us, it became manifest that not all who
belonged outwardly to us belonged to us also inwardly."
This may indeed be understood of those who, while they still
made a profession of Christianity, were always in their dis
position more inclined to Judaism, so that at last they
openly passed over to it, and became the opponents of
Christianity. But such frequent conversions or apostasies
to Judaism, in the Asiatic churches of this period were by no
means probable, i It is more natural to think of those
members of Christian communities, who had fostered in their
bosoms heretical tendencies foreign to Christianity, which
must have at last resulted in their open separation from them.
With justice, John says of a time like this, in which churches
were formed out of various mental elements not all in an
JOHN'S FIRST EPISTLE. 405
equal measure attracted and penetrated by Christianity, that
whatever portion was truly animated by the Christian spirit,
must be separated by a refining process proceeding from the
life of the church itself, from what was only superficially
affected by Christianity, and wore the mere semblance of it.
Besides the manner in which the apostle exhorts believers to
hold fast the doctrine announced to them from the beginning
— his saying to them that they required no further instruc
tion to put them on their guard against the spread of those
errors — that they need only to be referred to the anointing of
the Holy Spirit already received, to their indwelling Christian
consciousness (ii. 22), all this rather imports an opposition to
false teachers, than to decided adversaries of the gospel, who
could not be so dangerous to believers.
Although John describes his opponents as those who did
not acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah, yet, according to the
remarks that we just made, this cannot be understood of
decided unbelieving opponents of the Messianic dignity of
Jesus. And we must explain this shorter description of his
opponents by the longer, according to which they are repre
sented as those who would not acknowledge Jesus Christ as
having appeared in the flesh, or Jesus as the Messiah appearing
in the flesh. Therefore, from their Docetic standing-point
they would not receive the annunciation of a Messiah appearing
in the flesh ; the reality of the life, actions, and sufferings of
Christ in the form of earthly human nature.1 And since
John could not separate the divine and the human in the
person and life of the Redeemer from one another, for both
had revealed themselves to him as inseparable in the unity of
the appearance of the Son of God, — it appeared to him, that
whoever did not acknowledge Jesus as the Son of God in the
whole unity and completeness of his divine and human life,
did not truly believe in Jesus as the Son of God, the Messiah ;
and since only thus the eternal divine source of life revealed
itself in human nature and imparted itself to men, and a way
to communion with God was opened for all, — it appeared to
1 If it be objected, as by Lange in his Beitrage zur alteste Kirchen-
fjeschichte, Leipzig, 1828, vol. i. p. 121, that if John designed the con
futation of Docetism, he would have expressed himself in some precise
term*, such as we find in the Epistles of Ignatius ; the answer is, that
it is John's favourite method not to mark the object of controversy
more distinctly and fully.
406 JOHN'S FIRST EPISTLE.
him that whoever denied the reality of the revelation of the
divine Logos in the flesh, denied the Son of God himself and
the Father also. This was the real anti-christian spirit of
falsehood, which, though connecting itself in appearance with
the Christian profession, in fact threatened to destroy faith in
the Son, and in the Father as revealed in the Son. In a
passage which is rather practical than controversial, where
John, for the purpose of exhortation, lays down the position
that faith in Jesus as the Son of God arms with power for all
conflicts with the world, he adds, " Jesus is he who has revealed
himself as the Messiah by water l and by blood, — by means
of the baptism received by him 2 and by means of his re-
1 As the tpxeffBcu St' ulftaTos relates to Jesus subjectively, as the
person who had revealed himself 'by his own sufferings, so also the
second clause, tpxevOai 5i' vSaros, is most naturally referred to some
thing affecting Jesus personally, and, therefore, not to the baptism in
stituted by him. This reason is not perfectly decisive, for, if the
sufferings of Christ are not contemplated in their subjective aspect,
(that is, simply in relation to Jesus as the sufferer,) but rather in their
objective aspect, as redeeming sufferings, as that by which Christ
effected the salvation of mankind, then the coming by water might be
taken to denote the institution of baptism, which is necessarily required
for completing the redeeming work of -Christ. But what Lucke in his
Commentary, 2d ed. p. 288, has urged against the view I have taken,
does not appear pertinent. The Messiah (he thinks) was to be inducted
to his office by a solemn inauguration. This was performed through
John as the appointed prophet by means of the Messianic baptism.
Hence the coming by water is placed first, by which Jesus at first revealed
himself as the Messiah, and from which his whole public Messianic
ministry dates its commencement. This must have been peculiarly
important in John's estimation, who was first led to Christ by the
testimony of the Baptist. On the contrary, I believe that if he had
meant the baptism instituted by Christ, he would place first the coming
by blood, for I cannot agree with what Lucke says in p. 291. " But
because though v5<ap from the beginning denotes purification, yet the
full purification lies in the a.'1/j.u, John emphatically adds, OUK sv T$
ZSari fjiovov (with which alone John the Baptist appeared, and therefore
was not the Messiah, Matt. iii. 14), d\\' eV ry vSari KO.! T$ jtfyi<m." The
baptism of, Christ was in the apostle's view altogether different from
that of John. "With it was connected perfect purification. Water-
baptism and Spirit-baptism cannot here be separated from one another,
and this Christian baptism necessarily presupposes the redeeming suffer
ings of Christ. See Ephes. v. 25, 26, As far as Cermthus acknow
ledged the Messiah only as e\6a>i' eV T<£ ZSan, not as f\6uv ev r$ a'(/j.ari,
this would agree with a designed opposition to his doctrine.
2 On account of the importance which is attributed to it in the
Gospel of John, in reference to the unveiling of the Messiah's dignity
and the hidden glory of Jesus.
JOHN'S FIRST EPISTLE. 407
deeming sufferings and that which the Spirit of God, whose
witness is infallible, has effected, and still effects, by him,
testifies the same. The threefold witness of the water, the blood,
and the Spirit, thus unite to verify the same."
It is possible that John in this passage collected such marks
as appeared to him most striking, which distinguished Jesus
as the Son of God, without any special controversial reference.
But it is also possible that he connected a polemical with a
parsenetical design, and therefore was induced to select exactly
these marks ; and in this case it would be certainly natural
to suppose an intended contradiction of the Cerinthian view
which separated the Christ who appeared at the Baptism from
the crucified Jesus.
This epistle then contains an impressive appeal against the
practical adulterations of Christianity. The apostle declares
that only he who practised righteousness was born of God, —
that a life in communion with Christ and a life of sin were
irreconcilable, — that whoever lived in sin was far from knowing
him ; whoever committed sin transgressed also the law, and
sin was peculiarly a transgression of the law. From this
contrast it might be inferred that the false Gnosis here com
bated had produced and confirmed practical errors ; and we
may believe that we here find traces of the false liberalism
and antinomianism of the later Gnosis, such as we have
pointed out above, p. 390, in many appearances of this age.
In this case his opponents would be only those who opposed
the ethical under the form of law, and said, What you call sin
appears so only to those who are still enthralled in legal
bondage ; we must give proof of our being free from the law
by not regarding such commands. But if John had been
called to oppose such a gross antinomianism, he would have
had to maintain against it the dignity and holiness of the law,
and his line of argument would have been in a very different
direction, indeed quite the reverse. He must have said,
Whoever transgresses the law, commits sin, and the trans
gression of the law is sin. Also from his saying, " Whoever
sinneth, knoweth not Christ," it by no means follows that
those against whom he is writing, taught a Gnosis of immoral
tendency. Nor is it evident that the practical errors which
he combated proceeded in general from erroneous speculation ;
nothing more was needed for their production than that
408 JOHN'S SECOND EPISTLE.
unchristian tendency which would naturally spring up in
Christian communities, after they had been for some time
established, in which Christianity had passed from parents to
children, and become a matter of custom, and thus easily
gave birth to a reliance on the opus operatum of faith and of
outward profession, instead of vie wing faith as an animating
principle of the inward life. In opposition to such a tendency,
which disowned the claims of Christianity on the whole of
life, and palliated immorality, the apostle says, " Whoever
lives in sin, whatever be his pretensions, is far from knowing
Jesus Christ ; all sin is a transgression of the divine law,
which in its whole extent is sacred to the Christian."
The view of the false teachers to which we have been led,
by the First Epistle of John, ! is confirmed by the second,
addressed to a Christian female in those parts, named Cyria,
1 It is remarkable that the author of the two last epistles of John
styles himself a presbyter, a term which is not suited to designate an
apostle, and particularly since at that time, and in that region, a person
was living who was unusually distinguished by the name of the Pres
byter John. Such was the presbyter John to whom Papias appeals,
Euseb. iii. 29, and we might be tempted to attribute this epistle to him.
He appears to have been commonly distinguished by the name of the
presbyter (which is here a title of office) John, from the apostle John,
and hence the word irpffffivrepos was wont to be placed before the name
John. It is indeed improbable that, during the lifetime of the apostle,
another could have attained such high repute among the churches, as
this epistle leads us to suppose of its author ; but it might have been
written after the apostle's death ; for that the presbyter survived him
may be inferred, as Credner justly remarks, from the circumstance that
Papias, in speaking of what John and the other apostles had said, uses
the word *l-nsv, but when speaking of the two individuals who had not
heard Christ himself, Aristion and the presbyter John, he says Xeyowiv.
On the other hand, we are obliged to acknowledge that the great
harmony of colouring, tone, and style, between the first epistle and the
two others, favours the opinion of their being written by the same
person ; nor can this be counterbalanced by the instances of single
expressions that do not occur elsewhere in John's writings. It is
difficult to imagine how that presbyter, especially if we are to consider
the Apocalypse as his work, could adopt a style so foreign to himself, in
so slavish a manner, during the latter years of his life. As to the name
of presbyter, which John here assumes, we can hardly think it of conse
quence that Papias distinguishes the apostles by the term Trpfafivrcpos, for
it is evident that he so calls them only in relation to their contemporaries
as belonging to a still earlier period, and it cannot hence be inferred that
John gave himself that title. But since there is no original document
extant, in which John marks his relation to the church, we cannot pro
nounce an opinion that he was never known by such an epithet.
409
and her children ; for in this we find similar warnings against
false teachers who would not acknowledge the appearance of
Jesus Christ in human nature. l He speaks of their efforts as
forming a new feature of the times, and describes them not
as the adversaries of Christianity in general, but as persons
who had apostatized from the original doctrine of Christ.
He solemnly protests against all falsifiers of that doctrine,
enjoins on the faithful not to receive them into their houses,
nor to salute them as Christian brethren. 2
The third Epistle of John, which is addressed to an
influential person, probably an overseer in one of the churches,
named Gaius, also contains several important hints respecting
the existing state of the church. This Gaius had distinguished
himself by the active love with which he had received the
messengers of the faith, who had come from foreign parts and
visited his church. But in the same Christian community there
was a domineering individual, Diotrephes, who had shown a
very different disposition towards these missionaries. He not
only was not ready to give them a hospitable reception, but
wished to prevent others from doing so, and even threatened
to exclude them from church communion. He refused to
acknowledge the authority of the apostle, and even indulged
1 It appears to me most natural to explain the present in 2 John vii.
ipx*i>n*vov instead of e \ri\vQ6ra., by supposing that John used this form
owing to the impression on his mind that these false teachers not only
refused to acknowledge the historical manifestation of Jesus Christ,
but also denied the possibility, in general, of a Messiah's appearing in
the flesh.
2 Although we may recognise in the form of this expression a natural
characteristic of John, a vehemence of affection as strong in its anti
pathies as in its attachments, yet its harshness is much softened by a
reference to the circumstances under which he was writing. He cer
tainly wished only to express, in the strongest terms, that every appear
ance should be avoided of acknowledging these persons as Christian
brethren. Only on this account he says, that they are not to be saluted,
which, in the literal sense, he would not have said even in reference to
heathens. We must restrict it to the peculiar sense of Christian salu
tation, which was not a mere formality, but a token of. Christian brother
hood. But to preserve the purity of Christianity and the welfare of the
Christian church, it was very important to exclude from the very
beginning the reception of these persons (who, by their arbitrary specu
lations and fabrications, threatened to destroy the grounds of the
Christian faith) into the churches, which were not sufficiently armed
against their arts, and into which they had various methods of insinu
ating themselves.
410
JOHNS THIRD EPISTLE.
in malicious invectives against him. It is evident, that if a
member of a Christian community ventured to conduct him
self in such a manner towards an apostle, he must have had
personal reasons for not treating him with that reverence
which was shown to an apostle by all believers ; just as those
who were hostile to Paul had special grounds for disputing
his apostolic authority. 1 It is also very improbable, that this
unfriendly behaviour towards the missionaries could have
arisen at this period from an aversion to their calling simply
as such. We must rather attempt to discover a special
ground of dislike to these individual missionaries. Nor is it
unnatural to suppose that there was one common ground for
his hostility both to the apostle and the missionaries. Now,
let us suppose that the latter were of Jewish descent. It
is said to their praise, that they went out to publish the
gospel, without taking anything of the heathen for their
maintenance. If they were Jewish missionaries this would
serve as a praiseworthy distinction, for from what Paul
has said respecting this class of persons, we know that many
of them abused the right of the publishers of the gospel to "be
maintained by those for whose salvation they laboured. Now,
as there existed in the Gentile churches an ultra-pauline
party, of a violent, one-sided, anti-Jewish tendency, and the
forerunner of Marcion, Diotrephes possibly stood at the head
of such a body, and his hostile conduct towards these mis
sionaries, as well as towards the apostle John, who on his
arrival in Lesser Asia had sought to reconcile the differences
that were on the point of breaking out, by the harmonizing
influence of the Christian spirit — may be traced to the
1 It may appear strange that Paul, the most influential of the apostles,
is not mentioned in the Apocalypse, and that in xxi. 14, only twelve
apostles are named as forming the foundation of the New Jerusalem.
Though the reference to the twelve tribes might induce the author,
whose imagery was borrowed from the Old Testament, to mention only
the original number of the apostles, still the apparent undervaluation of
the great apostle of the Gentiles which this seems to imply, must excite
our surprise. And we are ready to ask, whether the author did not
belong to those who did not place Paul exactly on a level with the older
apostles, and did not sufficiently acknowledge his fitness for the apostolic
work, though we must, at the same time, perceive how very free he was
from the Judaism that would easily ally itself with such a tendency,
and how deeply he was imbued with the Christian universalism of
John's school of theology.
TRADITIONS RESPECTING JOHN. 411
same source. Thus, at a later period, Marcion attached him
self to Paul alone, and paid no deference to the authority
of John.
Various traditions respecting the labours of John in these
regions, which he continued to a very advanced age, perfectly
agree with that image of fatherly superintendence presented
to us in these epistles. In a narrative attested by Clemens
Alexandrinus,1 we see how he visited the Christians in the
parts round about Ephesus, organized the churches, and pro
vided for the appointment of the most competent persons to
fill the various church-offices. On one of these occasions, he
noticed a young man who promised to be of much service in
the cause of the gospel. He commended him to one of the
overseers as a valuable trust committed to him by the Lord.
The overseer carefully watched him till he received baptism.
But he placed too much reliance on baptismal grace. He left
him to himself, and the youth, deprived of his faithful pro
tection, and seduced by evil associates, fell deeper into cor
ruption, and at last became captain of a band of robbers.
Some years after, when John revisited that church, he was
informed to his great sorrow of the woful change that had
taken place in the youth of whom he had entertained such
hopes. Nothing could keep him back from hastening to the
retreat of the robbers. He suffered himself to be seized and
taken into their captain's presence ; but he could not sustain
the sight of the apostle ; John's venerable appearance brought
back the recollection of what he had experienced in earlier
days, and awakened his conscience. He fled away in con
sternation ; but the venerable man, full of paternal love, and
exerting himself beyond his strength, ran after him. He
called upon him to -take courage, and announced to him the
forgiveness of sins in the name of the Lord. By his fatherly
guidance he succeeded in rescuing his soul, and formed him
into a worthy member of the Christian community. 2 Another
1 Quis dives salv. c. 42.
2 Clemens gives this narrative, which breathes the spirit of John, as
a veritable historical tradition, and no legend, ^vdos = Ao'yos, not a
(jiv8os in the sense of a fable, a legend ; CLKOVCTOV /.ivBov, ov /jLvdov, aAXo fora.
\Ayov 7rapa5eSo,ue'i'OJ' Kal ^fJ.r) iretyvXaypivuv. See Segaar on
the passage. Such late traditions are* indeed not sufficient pledges to
authenticate a narrative as true in all its parts. It is possible that such
a narrative might be so constructed, partly to check the injurious con-
412 INFLUENCE OP JOHN'S LABOURS.
tradition preserved by Jerome1 bears also the impress of
the apostle's spirit. When the venerable John could no
longer walk to the meetings of the church, but was borne
thither by his disciples, he always uttered the same address
to the church ; he reminded them of that one commandment
which he had received from Christ himself as comprising all
the rest, and forming the distinction of the New Covenant,
"My children, love one another" And when asked why he
always repeated the same thing, he replied, " That if this one
thing were attained, it would be enough."
Thus the aged apostle laboured to the close of the first
century ; and the spirit that diffused itself from the churches
of Lesser Asia during the first half of the second century,
testifies of his protracted ministry in those regions. The
Lord made use of his instrumentality to prevent the founda
tion of the faith here laid by the apostle Paul from being
buried under a heap of heterogeneous speculations — and to
preserve the unity of the Christian faith and life from being
distracted by various extravagances ; that the glorious body
of the Christian church might not be divided into a multitude
of sects and schools, and especially that a schism might not
be produced by the increasing opposition of the Judaizing
and Hellenistic elements. His peculiar tendency, which
served to exhibit rather the fulness and depth of a heart
filled with the spirit of Christ, than the sharpness and dis
tinctness of doctrinal ideas, was adapted, while it rejected
with ardent love whatever threatened to endanger the founda
tion of faith in the Son of God, to conciliate subordinate
differences, and to promote the formation of a universal
Christian communion out of heterogeneous elements. The
extent of his influence is marked by the simple practical
spirit, the spirit of zealous love to the Lord, and the spirit
of Christian fidelity in firmly adhering to the original
fidence in the magical effects of baptism, and to set in a clear light the
truth, that every one after obtaining baptism needed so much the greater
watchfulness over himself — and partly to counterwork the opinion of
the Rigorists on the nature of Repentance, that whoever violated the
baptismal covenant by peccata mortalia, could not again receive forgive
ness of sins. But at all events, this narrative, which is free from all
colouring of the miraculous, gives the impression of a matter of fact
lying at its basis.
1 Comment, in Ep. ad Galat. c. vL
INFLUENCE OP JOHN'S LABOURS. 413
apostolic traditions, even though not perfectly understood,
which distinguished the Christian teachers of Lesser Asia in
their conflict with the Gnosticism which was then beginning
to prevail.
With John the apostolic age of the church naturally closes.
The doctrine of the gospel which by him had been still exhi
bited in its original purity was now exposed, without the
support of apostolic authority, to a conflict with a host of
opponents, some of whom had already made their appearance ;
the church was henceforth left to form itself to maturity
without any visible human guidance, but under the invisible
protection of the Lord : and finally, after a full and clear
development of opposing influences, it was destined to attain
the higher and conscious unity which distinguished the spirit
of the apostle John.
We wish now to contemplate more closely the development
of the Christian doctrine in its original form, and to observe
how the unity of the Spirit exhibited itself in the manifoldness
of the natural varieties animated by that Spirit, and in the
various modes of conception which proceeded from those
varieties.
BOOK VI.
THE APOSTOLIC DOCTRINE.
THE doctrine of Christ was not given as a rigid dead letter, in
one determinate form of human character, but it was an
nounced as the word of spirit and of life with a living flexi
bility and variety, by men enlightened by the Divine Spirit,
who received and appropriated it in a living manner, in ac
cordance with their various constitutional qualities, and the
difference of their course of life and education. This difference
served to manifest the living unity, the riches and the depth
of the Christian spirit in the manifoldness of the forms of
conception, which unintentionally illustrated each other and
supplied their mutual deficiencies. Christianity, indeed, was
designed and adapted to appropriate and elevate the various
tendencies of human character, to blend them by means of a
higher unity, and, agreeably to the design of the peculiar fun
damental tendencies of human nature, to operate through
them for the realization of the ideal of Man, and the exhibi
tion of the kingdom of God in the human race through all
ages.
In the development of the original Christian doctrine, we
can distinguish three leading tendencies, the Pauline, the
Jacobean (between which the Petrine forms an intermediate
link), and the Johannean.1 We wish first to review the Pauline
form of doctrine, since in this we find the fullest and most
complete development of Christian truth, which will best
serve as the basis of comparison in tracing the leading ten
dencies of the other apostles.
1 Dr. Nitzsch, in reference to the various forms of apostolic doctrine,
admirably remarks, — " To disown them in favour of a one-sided dogma
tism, is to abandon that completeness and solidity which these modes
of contemplating the Christian faith impart, while they reciprocally
complete one another ; it is to slight that by which scripture truth
maintains its elevation above all conflicting systems." — See Die Theo-
logische Zeitschrifi, edited by Schleiermacher, De Wette, and Liicke.
1822, part 3, part 68.
THE PAULINE DOCTRINE. 415
CHAPTER I.
THE PAULINE DOCTRINE.
IN order to develop from its first principles the peculiar
system of this apostle, we must take into consideration the
peculiar qualities of his ardent and profound mind — his pecu
liar education, how he was formed in the Pharisaic schools to
a dialectic and systematic development of his acquirements —
the peculiar manner in which he was led from the most
rigorous Judaism to faith in the gospel, by a powerful im
pression on his soul which formed a grand crisis in his history.
We must recollect the peculiarity of his sphere of action as
an apostle, in which he had to oppose an adulteration of
Christianity arising from a mixture of those views which
he himself had held before his conversion. In reference
to the sources from which he derived his knowledge of
the Christian doctrine, we must also .bear in mind what
he says respecting his independence and separate stand
ing as a teacher of the gospel. There is no doubt, for
he occasionally alludes to it, that he had met with a tra
ditionary record of the sayings, actions, and precepts of
Christ, and these formed the materials for the development
of his Christian knowledge, (ante, p. 95) ; but the Spirit pro
mised by Christ to his disciples, who was to disclose to them
the whole meaning and extent of the truth announced by
him, enlightened Paul in an independent manner, so as to
develop the truths of which the germ was contained in those
traditions, and form them into one whole with the earlier
divine revelations, and with the truths implanted in the ori
ginal constitution of man as a religious being. Those who
blamed him for blending foreign Jewish elements with
Christianity, entirely misconceived the views of that apostle,
who most clearly apprehended and most fully developed the
points of opposition between Judaism and Christianity. Nor
does it in the least justify their censures that he made use of
certain Jewish elements, which contained nothing at variance
with Christianity, but rather served as the groundwork of
the new dispensation. A comparison of the Pauline leading
416 THE PAULINE DOCTRINE.
ideas with the words of Christ as reported by Matthew and
Luke, proves that the germs of the former are contained in
the latter.
That which constituted the preparative standing-point for
Paul's whole Christian life, and determined his transition from
Judaism to Christianity, laid also the foundation for the pecu
liar form in which the latter was received and intellectually
apprehended by him. Here we find the natural central-point,
from which we proceed in the development of his doctrine.
The ideas of VOJJLOQ and ZiKmoavvr) form the connexion as well
as the opposition of his earlier and later standing-point. The
term linaioavvri in the Old Testament sense, designates the
theocratic way of thinking and life, and also that unrestricted
theocratic right of citizenship which entitled to a participa
tion in the temporal goods of the community, and to eternal
felicity. According to his former views, Paul believed that
he had acquired a title to the epithet of SIKCUOG by the strict
observance of the law ; as, in truth, the Pharisees, to whom
he belonged, placed their confidence and indulged their pride
in that observance, while they guarded against the violation of
the law by a variety of prohibitions. He was, as he himself
asserts (Philip, iii.), blameless as far as related to this legal
righteousness. And now from his Christian standing-point the
epithet of ^'/catoe,1 was in his esteem the highest that could
be given to a human being, and SiKaioavvr) expressed complete
fitness for participation in all the privileges and blessings of
the theocracy, and consequently of salvation, £W/. AiKatovvvrj
and £WT/ were always in his mind correlative ideas. But his
conceptions of the nature of this SiKaioavvrj had undergone
a total revolution since he was convinced of the insufficiency
and nullity of that which he had before distinguished by
this name. That liKaioavvr] rop/o; he now regarded as only
an apparent righteousness, which might satisfy human re
quirements, but could not, however plausible, deceive a holy
God, and therefore was of no avail in reference to the king-
1 Paul was very far from employing the word SiKaiovvvr) merely to
designate a subordinate moral standing-point like the later anti-Jewish
Gnostics, for he always proceeded on the theocratical principles of the
Old Testament. I cannot therefore admit that, in Rom. v. 7, a higher
degree of morality is intended by the word ayaQbs than by S/KCUOJ. The
opposite is evident, from the manner in which Paul places these words
together in Rom. vii. 12.
THE PAULINE DOCTRINE. 417
dom of God. It was henceforth his fundamental principle,
that no man by such works as he might be able to ac
complish from the standing-point of the law, could attain
a righteousness that would avail before God.1 This maxim,
which marks the opposition between his earlier and later
views, it was his main object to develop in arguing with
his Judaizing opponents. Now he certainly in this con
troversy first treated of the tpya vo/uou as an observance
of the ritual prescriptions of the law ; for his adversa
ries wished to impose even these on the believing Gentiles
as belonging to the true SiKatoffuvr) and as essential to
fitness for the kingdom of God ; and this it was which
he would not allow. Yet from the standing-point of
Judaism such a distinction between the ceremonial and
moral law was not possible, for everything was contemplated
as a divine command ; both equally involved obedience (to
the divine revealed will, and both required a disposition of
sincere piety.2 Though Paul in different passages and refer
ences had sometimes the ritual, and at other times the moral
portion of the vonoq especially in his thoughts, yet the same
general idea lies always at the basis of his reasonings. When
he had occasion, as in the Epistle to the Galatians, to impugn
the justifying power and continued obligation of the ceremo
nial law, still his argumentation proceeds on the whole idea of
the vopoQ. It is the idea of an externally prescribed rule of
action, the law as commanding, but which by its commands
can never produce an internal alteration in man. Satisfaction
can be given to the law — which indeed is true of every law as
such — only by perfect obedience. Now since no man is able
to effect the obedience thus required by the divine law, it of
course" pronounces condemnation on all as guilty of its vio
lation ; Gal. iii. 10. This is true of the imperative moral
law which is revealed in the conscience, not less than of
particular injunctions of this law exhibited in the Old
Testament theocratic form, as Paul himself applies it in the
1 The Pauline expression o\> StitaiovTai tvutriov rov Qeov e£ fpywv VO/JLOV
or 6K VO/J.QU Trava (rap£, is a phrase which most probably Paul very soon,
formed, from the peculiar development of his Christian convictions,
arising from the method of his conversion.
2 When Christ, in the Sermon on the Mount, says tnat he came not
to destroy the law or the prophets, but to fulfil, he certainly made no
such distinction.
VOL. I. E E
418 JUSTIFICATION AND WORKS OF THE LAW.
Epistle to the Romans to the law written on the hearts of
men, the law of conscience, which, as he asserts, calls forth
the consciousness of guilt in those to whom the VOJJ.OG was not
given in the external theocratic form.
In reference to the whole idea of the vop.o^ in the revelation
of the divine requirements to Man in the form of an imperative
law, the apostle says, Gal. iii. 21, that if it could make men
inwardly alive, if it could impart a true internal life from
which all goodness would spontaneously proceed, then it would
be right to speak of a liKtuoavvr) proceeding from the law. Yet
in that case, if Man were truly in harmony with the requirements
of the law in the constitution of his internal life, it could not
"be properly said that he obtained a righteousness available
before God by the works of the law ; for the external supposes
the internal ; the disposition of true righteousness is manifest
of itself to the eye of Omniscience;1 the internal cannot
proceed from the external, but the external must proceed
from the internal. Still in this case, works corresponding to
the requirements of the law would be the necessary marks of
the truly righteous and of the righteousness that avails before
God, of what is truly well-pleasing to God. But in the present
condition of Man, this is nowhere to be found. The dispo
sition corresponding to the requirements of the law does not
exist in man, and an external law cannot produce a change
internally, cannot communicate power for fulfilling its own
commands, nor overcome the opposition that exists in the
disposition. Even if a man be influenced by inferior motives,
1 This is acknowledged by Aristotle; '6n 5e? TO, Si'/cata Tr^aTToi/ra?
St/ccuovs yiv€ff6ai. — ra Trpdy/jLara SiKaia Ae^erai, orav rj TOIUVTO, ofa av ft
Sticaios 7rpa£eieV SIKCUOS Se' eVrii/ oi>x & TO.VTO. irpaTruv, oAAa /ecu 6 OUTCO
TTpdrrtav us ol StKcuot TrgdrToucfiv. — Eth. IsTich. ii. 3. As Paul contrasts
the standing-point of the righteousness of the law and that of true
righteousness, so Aristotle contrasts the ra VTTO TUV vo^wv T^rayp-eva
•noitiv, and the TTUS exol/Ta ifg&Trctp fKacrra., SXTT' elrat ayaObv, Xtyca
8' olov 8ta Trpoaipzffw (the (ppovelj/ TU TOU •nve.vp.a.-ros, from which all right
action must proceed ; Rom. viii. 5.) But Christianity elevates the
reference of the mind above the reflection of the good in the Trparro^va
to the avrb ayadbv, the original source and archetype of all good in
God, to communion with God, and the exhibition of this communion
in the actions of the life. It is the disposition of the truly righteous
which refers everything to the glory of God. Morality is a manifesta
tion and exhibition of the divine life. And Christianity points out the
process of development through which a man, by means of I'egeneration,
may attain to that dper^j which produces the right
JUSTIFICATION AND WORKS OF THE LAW. 419
by carnal fear or hope, by vanity which would recommend
itself to God or man, to accomplish what is commanded
according to appearance, still the disposition required by the
spirit of the law would be wanting. The works resulting
from such attempts, whether they related to the moral or
ritual part of the vo/uoe, would want the disposition which is
the mark of the genuine Sucuocw//, presenting itself before
a holy God. It results from this connexion of ideas, that
though epya vopov may in themselves be works which really
exhibit the fulfilling of the law, they would be considered by
Paul as acts of a merely superficial external, and not internal
obedience, they would bear the impress of mere legality in
opposition to true piety and morality. The epya vopov are not
classed with epya dyadd but opposed to them ; Eph. ii. 10. Of
such a legal righteousness he speaks when he says, Phil. ii. 6,
that in this respect he had been a Pharisee without blame,
though viewing it afterwards from the Christian standing-
point he esteemed it as perfectly nugatory. Thus, in a two
fold sense, Paul could say that by works of the law no man
could be justified before God. Taking the expression works of
the law in an ideal sense, no man can perform such works as
are required by the law ; taking it in an empirical sense, there
are no works which are really performed on the standing-
point of the law, and correspond to its spirit and require
ments.
If the assertion of the insufficiency of the righteousness of
the law be made without more exactly denning it, it may be
supposed to mean, that the moral commands of the" law
exhibit only an inferior moral standing-point, and on that
account can lead no one to true righteousness. According to
this supposition, our judgment respecting the claims of Chris
tianity would take a particular direction, and we should con
sider the exhibition of a complete system of morals, as forming
its essential preeminence over the former dispensation. But
from the manner in which Paul makes this assertion, it is
evident that this is not his meaning. He never complains of
the law as defective in this respect, but on the contrary eulo
gizes it as in itself holy and good ; Rom. vii. 12. The single
commandment of love which stands at the head of the vtytor,
contains in fact everything (Romans xiii. 9) essential to moral
perfection, and whoever fulfilled this would be truly righteous.
420 MEANING OF THE TERM 2A?H.
And in the two first chapters of the Epistle to the Romans
his aim is to prove that the Jews in relation to their ro^oc, as
well as the Gentiles in relation to the moral law inscribed on
their hearts, were not wanting in their knowledge of what was
good, but in the power of will to perform what they knew to
be good. The reason why the law could not produce true
righteousness, consisted in the fact that it presented goodness
only in the form of an external command, and also in the
relation of the command to the moral condition of those to
whom the law was given. This leads us to the central point
of the Pauline Anthropology ; namely, human nature as
estranged from the divine life and standing in opposition to
the requirements of the law ; whether the eternal moral law,
or the law in its outward theocratical form. This opposition
we must now examine more minutely.
That principle in human nature which strives against the
fulfilment of the law, the apostle generally distinguishes by
the name of the Flesh, and the man in whom this principle
predominates, or the man whose mind is not yet transformed
by Christianity, by the name of vapKiKOQ or TO. TJJS aapxoQ
Qporwr. He represents this principle striving against the law
as a law in the members, which opposes the law of reason ; he
speaks of " the motions of sin in the members" which ob
structed the fulfilment of the law acknowledged by the mind ;
Romans vii. 5. The body as the seat of sinful desires he
calls the <rwpa TJJQ dpapTiag, Rom. vi. 6, the aw pa ri/c ffapKOC,
Col. ii. 11. Hence we might conclude, that the apostle de
duced sin from the opposition between sense and spirit in
human nature, and that he considered evil as a necessary
transition-point in the development of human nature, till
spirit acquired the perfect ascendency. But this could not be
the apostle's meaning, for he considered this conflict between
reason and sense, not as founded in the original nature of
man, but as the consequence of a free departure from his
original destination, as something blameworthy ; and here we
see of what practical importance in the Pauline doctrine is the
supposition of an original perfection in man and a fall from it.
Hence we must consider in every instance, the preponderance
of sensual inclination over reason, according to Paul's view,
only as an essential consequence of the first moral disunion.
There are indeed many things to be urged against the supposi-
MEANING OP THE TERM SAFE. 421
tion that when he specifies the ndpl as the source of sin, he meant
nothing but sensuality in opposition to the spiritual principle
in man. In Gal. v. 20, among the works of the erap£, he
mentions divisions (cJ/xoarracrmi), which cannot be attributed
to sensual impulses. It is possible, indeed, to argue in favour
of such an interpretation by saying, that Paul had in view
those divisions which he traced to sensual impulses, to a
sensual way of thinking, to a Judaism that adhered to sen
sual objects, and opposed the more spiritual conceptions of
Christianity. But it appears still more surprising that he
traces everything in that erroneous tendency which he op
posed in the church at Colossse to the adp£ to a VOVQ aapKtKog ;
and here it would be difficult to attribute everything to a
sensual addictedness, for we meet on the contrary with a
morbid striving at freedom from the senses, an ascetic ten
dency which would defraud the bodily appetites of their just
claims. And even if in all these attempts we detected the
workings of a refined sensuality, that tendency which, while
cleaving to outward objects, could not rise to the pure inward
religion of the spirit ; still we find that in the Corinthian
church also, the apostle traced to the <rup£ everything which
either openly or secretly opposed Christianity, not excepting
even the speculative Grecian tendency, the ao^lav ^relv,
which treated the simple gospel with contempt. From all
these considerations, we may infer with certainty that some
thing more than sensuality was included in the Pauline idea
of adp£. And it confirms this conclusion, that Paul not only
uses the phrase Kara avdpwrrov Trepurarel.* as equivalent to
Kara adpKa TrepnraTeiv, but also employs the designation
avQpii)TTOQ \lvyjLxoQ as equivalent to dvdpwTroQ aapKiKoc, 1 Cor.
ii. 14. All this relates only to the opposition of the Human
to the Divine, whether the adpt, or the i/^X^1 against the
Tcveuua. Paul detected in the philosophic conceit of the
Greeks, which with all its striving could not pass beyond the
bounds of earthly existence, and satisfied itself without finding
1 Paul indeed might distinguish the irvev/j.a from the if^x^ as a power
inherent to human nature, which serves as an organ for the Divine, or
for the Holy Spirit, and under that influence acquires a predominant
activity. This may be inferred also from the trichotomy, (a threefold
division of man) in 1 Thess. v. 23. According to that trichotomy, the
\I/VXLKOS would be a person in whom, by the predominance of the lower
powers of the soul, the higher, the subjective 717*61710 was depressed.
422 ON HUMAN DEPEAVITY.
the highest good which alone can give true satisfaction to the
mind, and in the arrogance of the imaginary legal righteous
ness of the Jews, the same principle of the aa.pt, as in the
thirst for sensual pleasure. There was a aotyia Kara adpica, a
diKaiovvvrj Kara adpKa. These ideas, adpl, KO&HOQ, Trvevfjia rov
Koo-pov, correspond to one another. Thus the term <raX denotes
human nature generally in its state of estrangement from the
divine life ; and from this designation we cannot determine
what Paul considered as the one fundamental tendency from
which all the forms of sin might be deduced, or whether he
admitted one such source. On this last point we find no
precise explanation in his writings. But as he represented
the OEM '(,r]v, the Xpiorw £rji'} to be the principle of good in
man, it is implied that the kavrf £i/r, the selfish tendency
(the £yw in relation to self, not subordinating itself to the
religious sentiment, Gal. ii. 30), was the fundamental tendency
of evil. Now, partly because the power of the sinful principle
in the present condition of human nature makes itself known
by the conflict of sensual inclinations with the law acknow
ledged by the Spirit — partly because Christianity first spread
itself among those classes in which it had to combat most of
all with the power of rude sensuality — partly because the
body serves as the organ of the sinful tendency which has the
mastery in the soul, and the power of sinful habit continues
in it with a sort of self-subsistence even after the soul has
been made partaker of a higher life ; — on all these accounts,
Paul often employs the term <rdp£ to express the whole being
of sin.
Paul commonly refers to the consciousness of sin as an
universal fact in human nature, and appeals to what every
man may know from his own inward experience. By this
means, his preaching everywhere found acceptance, because it
was based on a fundamental truth, which was not received on
tradition, nor on the testimony of foreign authority, but
manifested itself in the consciousness of every individual. The
consciousness of this schism in human nature, and the feeling
arising out of it, of the need of redemption, remains in its
unchangeable validity, independent of all historical tradition,
and though man must acknowledge this schism as a given
fact without being able to explain its origin. This internal
fact, to which Paul appealed as a matter of immediate con-
ON HUMAN DEPRAVITY. 423
sciousness, we must distinguish from all attempts to explain
it,1 which may appear untenable; while this fact, and the
sense of a need of redemption springing out of it, and faith
in a Redeemer, retain their value undiminished. Hence it is
very natural, and a proof of the apostle's wisdom, that he
treats in so few passages of the original perfection of the first
man, and of the first sin, compared with the number which
relate to this universal fact. But it by no means follows, that
what he says on this subject has a merely accidental con
nexion with his Christian convictions ; that everything which
he says of the first man, only served as a foil borrowed from
the notions in vogue among the Jews, to set the redeeming
work of Christ in a more striking light by the contrast. We
may rather affirm that this fact is intimately and closely con
nected with the whole Christian consciousness of the apostle,
for it lies everywhere at the basis, where he represents this
schism not as something included in the plan of the divine
creation itself, and necessaiy in the development of human
nature, but as something blameworthy. To justify the
holiness and love of God, it must have been important for
him to be able to say, that man was not created in this con
dition by God, but that it originated in an abuse of the
freedom bestowed upon him."2
1 This fact, the only one necessary to be presupposed in order to faith
in a Redeemer, is in itself independent of all investigations respecting
the derivation of the human race ; and as something known by imme
diate inward experience, belongs to a province of life which lies out of
the range of all speculation, or of inquiries into natural science and
history. And the doctrine of a pre-existence of souls, though insufficient
to explain this fact, leaves it untouched, or even requires to be explained
by it. It is essential to Christianity that it rests on an historical basis,
•which, in order to be acknowledged in its true meaning, only pre
supposes experiences which every man can make for himself.
2 Krabbe, in his excellent work, Die Lehre von dtr Sunde, p. 56,
remarks, that he does not clearly understand what are my views
respecting the origination of sin in the primitive state of man. But it
was foreign to my object — since I only wished to develop the doctrines
of the apostle Paul in the form in which they were conceived and repre
sented by him, and their mutual connexion — to explain myself further
on this topic, and to state, as I must have done as a believer inKevealed
Eeligion, that, according to my conviction, the origin of evil can only
be understood as a fact, a fact possible by virtue of the freedom belong
ing to a created being, but not to be otherwise deduced or explained.
It lies in the idea of evil, that it is an utterly inexplicable thing, and
424 THE ORIGINAL STATE OF MAN.
But this view of the subject is not admissible if, as many
have maintained, Paul exhibited the first man as a representa
tive of human nature, and wished to show by his example
how, by virtue of the original constitution of human nature,
love of pleasure appeared in opposition to the rational prin
ciple or to the capability for religion — that this is constantly
repeated in the case of every individual, in order that man,
from the consciousness of this opposition, may attain through
redemption to the efficient supremacy of religion in his
nature. This chain of ideas we should certainly find in Paul's
writings, if it could be shown that, in Rom. vii. 9, he alluded
to and intended to mark the condition of original innocence ;
and how by the commandment that state of childlike inge
nuousness was removed, and the slumbering love of pleasure
was brought into consciousness and raised to activity. But
it cannot be proved that the apostle, where he speaks of an
apparent freedom from guilt, in which the principle of sinless-
ness though scarcely developed, lay at the bottom, had in his
thoughts that original freedom from guilt which he rather
describes as sinfulness. Certainly he could not have said that
by one man sin came into the world, if, in Rom. vii. 9, he had
assumed the existence of sin already in the first man accord
ing to his original constitution, as something grounded in the
essence of human nature. In order to reconcile this, some
thing foreign must be introduced into Paul's train of thought,
which evidently does not belong to it. If we proceed on the
supposition that a freedom, in the sense in which it must be
allowed according to this Pauline doctrine, and a transition
from sinlessness to sin, is something inconceivable, still we are
not justified in explaining Paul according to a representation
whoever would explain it nullifies the very idea of it. It is not the
limits of our knowledge which make the origin of sin something inex
plicable to us, but it follows from the essential nature of sin as an act of
free will, that it must remain to all eternity an inexplicable fact. It
can only be understood empirically by means of the moral self-conscious
ness. To epciTT;/ia, lo iravTuv aiTi6v effn KKKUIV, fj.a\\ov Se T] irepl rovrov
uSls, tv rfj tyvxy i-yyiyvoptvi), V « ^ TIS e'£cupe0i7<reTai, TTJS aAyQdas
OVTUS ov fjL-f] Trore n'^ot. Ep. ii. Platon. Whoever in his arrogant
littleness can satisfy himself with mutilating human nature, and
reducing it to a minimum, with substituting thinking in a certain
form in place of the whole man, may adjust after his own fashion all the
phenomena in the moral world ; but the unconquerable voice of Nature
will know how to assert her rights against all such fine-spun theories.
ON THE FALL. 425
of which no trace can be found in his writings, not to add
that such a view is opposed to his moral and religious spirit,
as well as to that of Christianity in general ; for according to
it, the consciousness of freedom, and the sense of guilt con
nected with it, could be nothing else than a necessary decep
tion imposed by the Creator himself in the development of
human nature ; an unavoidable illusion in the consciousness
of each individual.
The sin of the first man occupies so important a position in
Paul's views, because it was a free act from which a course of
life proceeded, contradicting the original moral nature of man
or the image of God in man. When he says, Rom. v. 12,
"By one man sin entered into the world," we shall most
naturally understand it (as he adds no other limiting clause)
in this manner ; that the sinful tendency of the will, or the
opposition between the human and the divine will, now first
made its appearance in the hitherto sinless human nature,
and propagated itself with the development of the race from
this first point. This is according to a law which regulates
the propagation of human kind as a whole, and in particular
tribes, nations, and families, without which there could be no
history, no development of human kind as a race. And, in
fact, we see Paul applying the same law, when he contem
plates evil in its combined and reciprocal effects on the great
mass of mankind, the collective body of Jews or Greeks.
All men have sinned, since they have followed the sinful
tendency that has passed upon them through the develop
ment of the race. In this sense, Paul says that by the
disobedience of one many became sinners.1 He also connects
1 It is now indeed generally acknowledged, that in the last clause of
Rom. v. 12, the relative pronoun cannot be referred to Adam. It is not
evident to me (as Rothe, p. 32 of his acute essay on this passage, Wit
tenberg, 1836, has maintained), that ty $ cannot be translated "for
that ;" the original meaning of this preposition with the dative, by means
of which it expresses something conditional, an accompaniment, easily
passes into the sign of a certain causal relation; and as &ri with a
dative signifies this, hence e<j>" $ by an attraction may signify " for
that," " because that." This meaning is certainly to be adopted in 2 Cor.
v. 4. What Rothe, p. 25, has said against this construction in the last
passage is quite untenable. Nor does Philip, i. 21 — 24, contradict
this interpretation, for anxiety after eternal life by no means excludes
the repugnance necessarily founded in human nature against the conflict
with death. Man would always prefer passing to a higher state of
426 CONNEXION BETWEEN DEATH AND SIN.
sin and death together, and affirms that with sin death came
into the world, and had propagated itself among all men.
existence without so violent a process of transition, and the fiapeiffQai is
certainly (what Rothe denies) quite as necessary and constant a mark of
the .Christian life as the tTmroQelv. I will readily allow that Paul has
made use of this expression in the Romans to designate causality, since
it corresponds more than any other to the form under which he is here
thinking of causality. The first original causality is the sin of Adam — •
the secondary cause, the connecting link for this continuation of death
from Adam, is the sinning of individuals, on which the connexion
between sin and death, subjectively considered, depends. But if the
€$' cji be not referred to Adam, still the passage might be so taken that
the imputation of Adam's sin would be maintained by it, if either the
rifj-aprov is referred to the participation of all in Adam's sin, (which yet
would be entirely arbitrary, since no more definite expression is added
to indicate that the apostle is speaking of the sinning of all in one,) or
the e<£>' <£ is understood in Rothe's sense. The reasoning of the apostle
would then be this : Men sinned indeed from the time of Adam to the
appearance of the Mosaic law, but they did not sin like Adam by the
violation of a positive law, and without a law there can be no imputa
tion of sin. Consequently, to that time, not men's own sins, but only
that sin of Adam was punished as the common guilt of humanity ; only
in this relation could death affect them as a punishment of sin. But
Paul could not say this without contradicting what he had asserted a
little before ; for he had distinctly shown, that the want of an outward
theocratic law by no means excused the Gentiles in their sins, since its
place was supplied by the divine law revealed in their consciences : and
always when he refers to the consciousness of guilt in men, he appeals ,
to this internal judgment on their own sins, without taking account of
Adam's sin as reckoned to the whole human race. And if, with Rothe,
we distinguish a positive juridical connexion formed by imputation
between sin and death, from an internal, real, natural, and therefore
immediate connexion, (which is a leading idea in his essay, and ex
pressed fully in p. 54,) this self-contradiction in Paul would not be
obviated, for the divine imputation and the voice of conscience, the
internal sense of guilt, are correlative ideas. The voice of con
science, in the internal sense of guilt, is nothing else than the subjective
revelation of the divine imputation; and as Paul assumes the first
independently of a positive law, he must therefore assume the second as
something independent of positive law, as he himself develops it in
Rom. ii. 14 — 16, and also marks the connexion between sin and death
established by the divine justice, and manifested as such in the con
sciences of men ; Rom. i. 32. If we allow Paul to be his own inter
preter, we shall find the train of thought in Rom. v. 13, 14, to be the
following. He brings forward the objection that the sin of Adam had
reigned in the world till Moses, although no positive law was in exist
ence, and without law there could be no imputation of sin. He repels
this objection by the fact, that death still reigned even over those who
had not sinned like Adam against a positive law. This fact is an
objective evidence of imputation, and, as is evident from the preceding
CONNEXION BETWEEN DEATH AND STN. 427
Now, according to Paul's views, this cannot be understood of
an essential change in the physical organization of man, and
that the body by that event first became mortal instead of
immortal, for he expressly asserts the opposite in 1 Cor. xv. 45,
since he attributes to the first man a o-oJ^ua ypiKoV) ^V^IKUVI
in contrast with the crujpa irvtv^ar^ov of the resurrection.
This change, therefore, can only relate partly to the manner
in which our earthly existence would terminate, the forcible
disruption of the connexion between soul and body which
we designate by the name of death, partly to the manner in
which the necessity of such a death would appear to the
human mind. But both are closely connected with one
another. As life, life in communion with God, a divine, holy,
happy, and unchangeable life, are ideas indissolubly connected
remarks, this imputation approves itself to be just in the conscience,
which exhibits men as transgressors of an undeniable divine law.
1 What Paul here says of the ^IVXIKOV of man, certainly relates only
to the constitution of the body, which only has in it the principle 01
earthly life ; he could not mean to designate by it the nature of man in
general, as if, since it had in itself nothing higher than an animal prin
ciple, and was destitute of the divine principle of life which was first
imparted through Christ to human nature, it must necessarily succumb
to temptation. That supposition which we have already combated
would then follow, that sin was something already deposited in the
psychical constitution of human nature, and a necessary link in its
development, which would manifest its power when once aroused from
its slumbers, and that sinlessness could only emanate from Christ. But
according to the doctrine of Paul, the indwelling Tn/eu/m of the human
nature itself is to be distinguished from the supernatural Tri/ey/m, as the
receptacle in the human soul for the operations of the Divine Spirit,
that which, in connexion with the supernatural influence, belongs to its
right activity ; see above, p. 130. Even in the spiritual nature of fallen
man, he recognises something higher as the vj/yx7?. I cannot agree M'ith
Usteri, that, in the passage 1 Thess. v., by the term irvfii/j-a, we are to
understand the operation of the Holy Spirit, or the divine principle of
life communicated by it, as some individualized in man. In reference
to this, Paul conld not express the wish that it might be preserved
blameless, for in itself it could not be affected by any sin : wherever
anything sinful found entrance, it must retire. The passage in 1 Thess.
i. 19, " llepress not the operations of the Divine Spirit ; let inspiration
have its free movement," cannot be considered parallel ; and as little
the exhortation in Eph. iv. 30, not to grieve by evil passions the Spirit
of God working in the souls of believers, which is very different from
keeping it blameless and spotless. In all these passages, Tri/eD/ua is not
spoken of as a property of man; in the first, on the contrary, the in/c^ua
is represented as altogether homogeneous, as a component part of human
nature with the soul and body.
428 REVELATION OF GOD IN CHEATION.
in the New Testament phraseology, particularly in the writings
of Paul and John, so, on the other hand, are equally connected
the ideas of sin, unhappiness, and death. As man in com
munion with God becomes conscious of a divine life raised
above all change and death, and the thought of the cessation
of life or annihilation is unknown ; so when by sin this con
nexion is broken, and, in estrangement from God as the
eternal fountain of life, he becomes conscious of his contracted
existence, the thought of death first springs up. Without
this, the transition from an earthly existence to a higher —
objective in itself, and subjective to the mind1 — would have
been only the form of a higher development of life. In this
sense, Paul calls sin, the sting of death, 1 Cor. xv. 56, by
which he marks the internal connexion between death and a
sense of guilt ; as the wounding power of death is founded in
sin, death as that terrific object to the mind of man exhibits
itself only in connexion with the consciousness of sin.
Paul certainly represents a corruption of human nature as
the consequence of the first sin, and admits a supremacy of
the sinful principle in the human race, but not in such a
manner that the original nature of man as the offspring of
God, and created in his image, has been thereby destroyed.
Rather he admits the existence in man of two opposing prin
ciples — the predominating sinful principle and the divine prin
ciple, depressed and obscured by the former, yet still more or
less manifesting its heavenly origin. Hence he deduces an un
deniable consciousness of God, and an equally undeniable moral
self-consciousness as a radiation from the former. And as he
recognises an original and universal revelation of God to the
human consciousness, so also he acknowledges in human
nature a constitution adapted to receive it ; as there is a self-
testimony of God, in whom the spirit of man lives, moves, and
exists, so also there is an original susceptibility in human
nature corresponding to that testimony. The whole creation
as a revelation of God, especially of his almightiness and
1 Krabbe, in his work already quoted, although the premises deduced
by him from 1 Cor. xv. 45, ought to have led to the same view as mine,
yet he has opposed it, under the supposition that I have not admitted
an objective alteration of the form of death, but only a subjective
alteration in reference to the form in which it is represented to the mind
of man. To guard against this misunderstanding, I have added several
new observations to render my meaning more explicit.
THE TWOFOLD PRINCIPLE IN MAN. 429
goodness,1 is designed to arouse the spirit of man to a per
ception of this inward revelation of God. But since by the
predominant sinful tendency of man the susceptibility for this
revelation of God is impaired, he has lost the ability to raise
himself by means of the feelings awakened by outward im
pressions to a development of the idea of God, to serve as an
organ for which is the highest destiny of the human spirit.2
Since the consciousness in man of an interior being, by virtue
of which he is distinct from nature, and exalted above it, is
capable of appropriating the supernatural, has been depressed
by sin, — since he has enslaved himself to that nature over
which he was destined to rule,3 he is no longer able to develop
1 In Bom. i. 20, Paul first asserts in general, that the invisible being
of God is manifested to the thinking spirit by the creation; he then
specifies the revelation of his power, and adds to it the general term
Geitr-iis, (on the form of this word see Riickert,) including everything
besides which belongs to the revelation of the idea of God, to our con
ceptions of the divine attributes to the a.6para TOV 0eoD. We cannot de
duce from the words (for it was not the apostle's intention to be more
definite) a special reference to any other divine attribute ; but'it is not
without reason that he brings forward the idea of Almightiness, be
cause this first strikes the religious consciousness on the contemplation
of Nature, and hence the consciousness of dependence on a higher
power is the predominant sentiment in Natural Religion. Still we may
infer, from the term rjuxaP-f°"rT?(raI/ in v- 21, that the goodness of God
was present to his thoughts, which is favoured by a reference to Acts
xiv. 17. In this result I agree with Schneckenburger in his Essay
on the Natural Theology of Paul and its sources, contained in his
Beitrafje zur Einlcitung, &c. But I cannot perceive the necessity
for deducing the manner in which Paul has expressed himself from any
other source than from the depths of his own spirit, enlightened by the
Spirit of Christ ; and in Philo's far less original investigations, I can
find nothing which can serve to explain Paul's thoughts and language,
although I see nothing in the use Schneckenburger is disposed to make
of Philo for the illustration of the New Testament, which tends to de
preciate the latter ; and I must entirely agree with his excellent remarks
on the relation of the Alexandrian-Jewish school to the appearance of
Christianity. He also justly remarks, that those who in their folly think
that they can illustrate the greatest revolution in the human race (the
moral creation effected by Christianity) by excerpts from Philo (an at
tempt as rational as to explain the living principle by a corpse), must
serve quite a different' object from that which they have proposed to
themselves.
2 The connexion of the inward and outward revelation of God is
probably hinted at in the phrase *v auroTs. Romans i. 19.
3 The dominion of man over nature presupposes in its true signifi
cance the free development of the knowledge of God, on which the
430 THE TWOFOLD PBINCIPLE IN MAN.
the feelings excited in his breast, of dependence on a higher
power, and of gratitude for the blessings bestowed upon him,
so as to believe in an Almighty God as Creator and Governor
of the world, but he allows these feelings to terminate in the
created beings, in the powers and phenomena of nature by
which they were first excited. Thus, as Paul describes in the
Epistle to the Romans, idolatry originated in the deification of
Nature, which yet implies a depressed consciousness of God,
and to this, as lying at its basis, Paul appealed in his discourse
at Athens. This depression of the consciousness of God by the
substitution of sensible objects, tended more and more to the
deterioration of man's moral nature ; Rom. i. 28. Yet this,
as it belonged to the essence of humanity, could not be
entirely obliterated. It manifested itself in the conscience
as the undeniable emanation from the consciousness of God.
According to Paul, this is the revelation of an internal law for
the life, and a judgment upon it, undeniable by man, even
should he not deduce from it the consciousness of that God
who here manifests himself as a hidden legislative and judging
power. Men, in passing judgment on one another, give
evidence of the power of that innate law of their nature, and
condemn themselves ; Rom. ii. I.1
Thus Paul represents two general principles in the natural
man as striving against each other ; the principle peculiar to
the offspring of God, and allied to God, an implanted con
sciousness of God, and (grounded on that) a moral self-con
sciousness, the reaction of the religious and moral nature of
man ; and the principle of sin ; or, in other words, Spirit and
Flesh. And as the former, the original nature of man, is
elevation of the spirit over nature and its affinity to God is founded, as
a means of exercising that true dominion.
1 I cannot agree with those who think that Paul, in this passage,
alluded to the Jews, who are expressly mentioned in v, 9. Had this
been the case, the transition from those of whom he had been speaking,
the Gentiles, to this new subject, the Jews, must have been in some way
marked. But the Std only refers us to what immediately precedes,!. 32,
which relates to the Gentiles, though it does not follow that Paul con
fined himself to the same class of Gentiles. Since whoever knows the
law of God (according to which they who do such things are worthy of
death) and yet does what it forbids, cannot excuse himself, — thou canst
allege no excuse for thyself; thou, whoever thou mayest be, thou who
testifiest of thy knowledge of God, when thou judgest another, thou
condemnest thvseif.
THE STATE OF BONDAGE. 431
checked in its development and efficiency by the latter, and
detained a prisoner as by a hostile force, he describes the state
of the natural man in general as one of bondage.1 Still a dis
tinction is to be made between the different states of this
bondage, whether it is conscious or unconscious ; whether the
depressed higher nature has become unconscious of its own
prerogative, and of the restraint imposed upon it, or whether
the sense of bondage in which man's higher self is held has
been excited, and hence a longing after freedom in the de
veloped higher self-consciousness. The latter is the state to
which the apostle has affixed the name of bondage in the more
restricted sense of the word, the bondage under the law ; a
state in which the consciousness of the depressed higher
nature is combined with that of the law revealing itself in it.
Hence these two states of unconscious or conscious bondage
are distinguished as living without the law, or living under
the law. These two states the apostle describes in the 7th
chapter of the Epistle to the Romans ; he here depicts, in his
own person, and from his own experience, two general states.
The first state he represents as one in which a man lives in
delusive satisfaction, unconscious both of the requirements of
the holy law and of the power of the counteracting principle
of sinfulness. He awakes from this state of security when the
consciousness of the law and its requirements is excited. The
moral ideal, which is presented by the law to the self-con
sciousness of man, exerts an attractive influence on his higher
nature. He feels that he can find satisfaction and happiness
only in the agreement of his life with this law. But then he
sees that he has been wofully deceived, for the law when it
brings forth into consciousness the sinful desires that had
hitherto been slumbering in his breast, irritates them to
greater activity by the opposition of its commands. The man
who is enduring this conflict is represented by Paul as saying,
" The commandment that should have tended to life brought
only death ; for sin which now took occasion to break forth,
deceived me by the commandment and by it slew me." — Rom.
vii. 10, 11. The deception which was practised by the power
of the hitherto slumbering but now rampant sinful desires,
consisted in this, that when the law in its glory, the moral
aichetype, first revealed itself to the higher nature of man,
1 The SovAe/a •njs apaprlas.
432 THE STATE OF BONDAGE.
he was filled with earnest desire to seize the revealed ideal ;
but this desire only made him more painfully sensible of the
chasm which separated him from the object after which he
aspired. Thus, what appeared at first a blissful ideal, by the
guilt of death-producing sin became changed into its opposite.
The higher nature of man aspiring after a freer self-con
sciousness, is sensible of the harmony between itself and the
divine law, in which it delights ; but there is another power,
the power of the sinful principle striving against the higher
nature, which, when a man is disposed to follow the inward
divine leading, drags him away, so that he cannot accomplish
the good by which alone his heavenly nature is attracted.1
In the consciousness of this wretched disunion, he exclaims,
" Who shall deliver me from this power of sin ? " 2 After
thus vividly calling to mind the state of disunion and unhappi-
ness from which Christianity has set him free, he is carried
away by emotions of thankfulness for redemption from that
internal wretchedness; and dropping the character he had
for the moment assumed, he interrupts himself by an excla
mation occasioned by the consciousness of his present state,
and then, in conclusion, briefly adverts to the state of dis
union before described. " I myself therefore am a man who
with the spirit serve the law of God, but with the flesh the
law of sin." If we understand the phrase, " serve the law of
God" in the full strictness of the idea, more seems to be
expressed by it than the standing-point of the natural man
allows : for taking the words in their highest sense, they
describe such a development of the whole life to God,
such an animating of it by a practical sense of God, as
must proceed from regeneration, and supposes its existence.
But we must first of all accurately fix the meaning of
1 By the opposition between the inner man and the law in the mem
bers or the flesh, Paul certainly does not mean simply the opposition
between Spirit and Sense ; for if the spirit were really so animated by
the good which is represented in the law as it ought to be according to
its original nature and destination, its volitions would be powerful
enough to subordinate sense to itself. But the apostle represents the
spirit as powerless, because a selfish tendency predominates in the soul.
He therefore intends by these terms to express the opposition between
the depressed higher nature of man, and the sinful principle which
controls the actions of men.
2 Paul terms it the body of death, inasmuch the power of evil desires
manifests itself particularly in the body as the slave of sinful habits.
THE APOSTLE'S EXPERIENCE. 433
and of vopog in this passage. Both terms are used
by Paul in a two-fold manner. The fundamental idea of
BovXevct? is that of a life corresponding to God's law and to
the consciousness of dependence on him. But this conscious
ness of dependence may be of two sorts ; either one with
which the tendency of the will harmonizes, one in which the
man consents with freedom ; or one which stands in con
tradiction to the will. And so likewise in the application of
the term Law, of which the general idea is a rule of life and
action. This rule may be either, according to the second
meaning of Sov\ela, a rule presenting itself to the spirit of
man from without, an outwardly commanding constraining
law, which contradicts the predominant internal tendency of
the Will, and whose supremacy is therefore only acknowledged
by compulsion ; or it may be a rule proceeding from within,
founded on the internal development of the life, with which
the predominant tendency of the will is in perfect harmony,
according to the first meaning of SovXeia. Now the apostle
here employs ciouXcm in the second sense, and describes a
state in which the consciousness of God makes its power felt
in the opposition to the sinful tendency of the will, that
controls the life ; for if the other sense of the term were
intended, that unhappy disunion would immediately cease.
If the consciousness of God had become an internal law
of the life with which the determinations of the will were in
harmony, the adp£ would no longer exercise its power as
a determining principle of the life.
No doubt, the apostle took the materials of this description
from his own experience, which put it in his power to
delineate the condition in such lively colours. Though
educated by pious parents in Judaism, still there was for
him during childhood a period of ingenuous simplicity,
in which the consciousness of the law and of the contrariety
between its requirements and the indwelling principle of sin,
could not be developed with the same clearness as in maturer
life. And from this first epoch of childhood, he was led on
by his Pharisaic education to the summit of servitude to the
law. But he represents in his own person the two general
standing-points of human development, by which the race, as
well as individuals, have been trained for the reception of
redemption. He here describes in an individual example the
VOL. i. F F
434 JUDAISM.
use of Judaism as the legal religion, viewed in its peculiar
nature to Christianity, in reference to the development of the
human race. Very different was that part of Judaism which
constituted the point of union between it and the gospel, and
the aspect under which it might be viewed as the gospel
veiled, the prophetic element, by which it was connected with
the promises made before the giving of the law, and formed
a continuation of them till the Redeemer himself appeared.
As in order to prepare for the reception of the Redeemer, it
was needful, on the one hand, to excite a consciousness
of internal disunion and bondage, and the consequent sense
of a need of redemption ; and on the other hand, to point
out the relief about to be afforded for this misery, and the
personage by whom it would be effected ; so Judaism was in
both these respects a divine revelation and a religious economy
preparative to Christianity.
In confutation of the Jews and Judaizers, who would
not recognise in Judaism a preparative dispensation, but
maintained its perpetual validity, the apostle evinced that
all the leadings of the divine government from the begin
ning of the world related to the fulfilment of a design
embracing the salvation of the whole fallen race of man, a
design of communicating among all men, by the Messiah,
redeeming grace, for the obtaining of which no other means
would be requisite than surrendering themselves to it and re
ceiving it by means of faith. There was, therefore, only one
fundamental relation between God and man; on the part
of God, a revelation of his grace in its promise and fulfilment ;
on the part of man, an appropriation of this grace by faith.
The legal Judaism could make no alteration in this unchange
able or fundamental relation between God and man, which
had been already established by the promises given to Abra
ham ; it could not add a new condition, such as the observ
ance of the law, for the fulfilment of the promises, Gal. iii. lo,
in which case the fulfilment of the promise would be attached
to something that could not be performed, since no man is
capable of observing the law. The law, therefore, formed
only a preparatory, intervening economy for the Jewish na
tion,1 partly designed to check in some measure the grosser
1 To this Bom. v. 20 refers, i^os Tra
THE USE OF THE LAW. 435
indulgences of sin,1 but more especially to call forth and
1 ra>v irapafido-ewv x<*PiV> Gal. *"• 19. The interpretation which I have
here followed of this passage requires to be supported against the
objections of Usteri in his Entwickkdung des paulinischen Lehrber/rijfes
(Development of the Pauline Doctrines), 4th ed. pp. 66, 67, and in his
Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, p. 114. The reasons
alleged by him are, that the idea of transgression presupposes the
idea of law — that according to the Pauline association of ideas, sin was
called forth by the law, the law could present no check to sin, but, on
the contrary, must tend to hasten the outbreak of sinfulness. Paul
would therefore contradict himself, if he said that the law was added
in order to check sin. But although Paul by describing dpaprla as
Tfapd&a(ris, conceived of it as a transgression of the law, yet sin without
reference to the Mosaic law might be so denominated in reference to the
law of God revealed in the conscience. When the internal law as a
revelation of God is outwardly presented in a literal form, it only serves
to -bring this opposition into clearer consciousness, and to counterwork
the manifold influences by which this consciousness is obscured and
depressed. Indeed, the law, according to Paul, cannot conquer sin
internally, but only serves to manifest it in its full extent. It can
produce no true holiness in the disposition; nevertheless, we can
readily conceive how a positive law, bringing into clearer consciousness
the opposition of good and evil, opposing the distinctly expressed
divine will to sinful inclinations, by threatening and alarming, Avould
check the outward indulgence of sinful desires, act as a check on grosser
immorality, and promote outward moral decorum. This, it is true,
can be attained only in a very imperfect degree by the law, since it has
not the power of operating on the internal ground, from which alljthe
outward manifestations of sin proceed. On the one hand, the law
checks the grosser outbreaks of sin ; on the other, it occasions that the
sinfulness called forth by opposition from its concealment, is displayed
in the form of particular transgression of the law, and a man thereby
becomes conscious of the hidden and deeply-seated root of all evil.
Both may be represented as the work of the law : the check put on the
outbreaks of sinfulness, and the greater prominence given to it in the
form of particular transgressions of special commands. Both may be
considered as the objects of that divine wisdom which gave the law to
man, if we only keep the various references distinct from each other.
On the one hand, to prevent the total brutalization of human nature,
and, on the other, not to permit the self-deception that any other means
of training can avail short of that method which will effect a radical
cure. As to the first point, Paul marks it in Horn., iii. 23, where he says
that men were kept as prisoners by the law, which agrees with what
Christ says when, in the Sermon on the Mount, he opposes the holiness
of disposition attained through the gospel, to the theocratic political
law, which would only restrain from without the outbreaking force of
evil, and with what he says in Matt. xix. 8, on the relation of the law
to the ffKXrjpoKapSta of men. With respect to the other interpretation of
the passage — " the law is added in order to make sin knowable as such,
to bring men to a clear consciousness of it :" the words do not so plainly
436 .THE USE OF THE LAW.
maintain a vivid consciousness of sin.1 Since the law put an
outward check on the sinful propensity, which was constantly
giving fresh proofs of its refractoriness — as by this means the
consciousness of the power of the sinful principle became
more vivid, and hence the sense of need both of the forgive
ness of sin and freedom from its bondage was awakened — the
law became a TrmSaywyoc; etg Xpiorov. The bondage of
Judaism partly consisted in the union of religion with a mul
titude of sensible forms, which could only typify the divine
that was not yet distinctly apprehended; the dependence of
the development of the internal religious life on outward and
sensible2 objects, might also contribute, like the moral part
of the law, to restrain rude sensuality, to awaken the internal
religious sentiment, to arouse it to a consciousness of the
bondage that oppressed it, and to a longing after freedom.3
convey this meaning. According to that interpretation they would
mean — the law was given to favour transgressions, in order that trans
gressions might take place ; the thought would, after all, be very ob
scurely expressed, and if this were said without further limitation, it
would convey such a mean estimate of the law, which Paul from his
standing-point certainly could not allo\v. And as Riickert justly
remarks, the use of the article with the word irapapda-ecav (on account of
certain existing sins in order to put a check to them) better suits the
method of interpretation we have followed and the connexion of the
passage, since it is the design of Paul to acknowledge the importance
of the law in its own though subordinate value. See Schneckenburger's
review of listen's work on the Pauline doctrines, which agrees in this
and several other points with our own views, in Rheinwald's Reper-
torium, No. vi., &c.
1 Rom. v. 20, 'ivu. TrXfovdffrj TJ d^aprla, " so that sin might abound,"
that is, that the power of indwelling sin, the intuitive force of the sinful
principle as such, might be manifested so much more strongly. In
reference to the development of the Pauline sentiment^ Fritsche, in his
excellent commentary, to which I am much indebted, justly remarks
(p. 350), that this cannot be the literal sense of the passage, for here
a.fj.apria is spoken of as a single violation of God's law. The sense of the
passage is, in order that transgressions may increase. But this must
serve to make them more conscious of the intrinsic power of the evil
principle, by its coming forth more distinctly in outward manifestation,
as we detect in the symptoms of a positive disease the morbific matter
which has been for a long time lurking in the system. Thus, Rom.
vii. 13, in order that sin might show itself abundantly as sin ; sin in its
destructive power, so that the law, in itself salutary, must bring de
struction to man on account of sin.
2 The Se5ov\a>a6ai faro TO. (rroix^a = r& vapKiKa. Vide supra, p. 323,
note.
3 Thus Peter calls the law in its whole extent, contrasted with the
THE JEWS AND GENTILES. 437
In tins aspect, the unity of the Moral and the Ritual in the
Mosaic law is apparent ; both belonged to this standing-point
of religious and moral development, and subserved the same
object.
In the ages preceding Christianity, mankind were divided
into Jews and Gentiles. The distinction between them con
sisted in the opposition between natural development, and
revelation among the Jews. God had from the beginning
communicated and propagated the knowledge of himself by a
connected series of revelation ; by a positive law, the need of
a redemption was manifested, and promises were given with
gradually increasing clearness of Him who was to justify this
need ; Rom. ix. 4. The theocracy was here presented in the
form of a particular nationality, until at last the Redeemer
arose from the midst of this nation, and verified in his own
person the promises made to them. The Gentiles, on the con
trary, were left to themselves, and shut out from the organized
historical preparation of the kingdom of God. Still the
apostle recognises, as we have here remarked, an original
revelation of God among the heathen, without which even
idolatry could not have arisen. He presents us with a two
fold idea of divine revelation, distinguished by two names.
The universal revelation of God in the creation, and through
that in the reason and conscience, in which three factors are
combined — the self-revelation of God in creation acting from
without — the adaptation to the knowledge of God in the spirit
of man, (reason and conscience) — and the undeniable con
nexion of created spirits, with the original Spirit whose
offspring they are, in whom they live and move and have
their being, the fountain from which proceed all the move
ments of the higher life ; this universal revelation the apostle
distinguishes by the name tyavipwats. Revelation in a more
restricted sense (which proceeds not from an operation of the
Divine Spirit through the medium of creation like the
former,) by means of which man apprehends in a divine light
the truths relating to salvation, the knowledge of which he
could not attain by his own reason, — Paul terms aVo-
But that universal revelation, owing to the corruption
grace of redemption, " a yoke which neither they nor their fathers were
able to bear." Acts xv. io.
438 THE JEWS AND GENTILES.
which repressed the awakened consciousness of God/ could
not be manifested purely and clearly; the deification of
nature, which gained the ascendency over its partial illumi
nation of mankind, formed an opposition against the element
of divine revelation in Judaism which was implanted there in
its purity, and presented by the providence of God. But in
considering the opposition of Heathenism to Judaism, we
must distinguish from its injurious influences that internally
revealed law of conscience which corresponded to the positive
law in Judaism. 2 That law of conscience would lead to the
knowledge of the disunion in the inner man; and of the need
of redemption, without which Christianity could find no point
1 Rom. i. 18, rV dx-jeeiav lv o5i/cfo Karexovres. " They repressed the
truth that manifested itself to them, the consciousness of truth that was
springing up in their minds — through sin." In these words, Paul par
ticularly referred to the Gentiles, though they might also be applied to
the Jews. It was not needful for him to point out to the Jews that they
could not allege as an excuse for their conduct, the want of a knowledge
of God and of his law, since they were only too much disposed to pride
themselves on the mere knowledge of what had been revealed to them.
2 Although Paul was accustomed to form his connexion of vdfj.os,
from Judaism, and to apply it to the Mosaic law; yet his Christian
universalism, and his unfettered views of the process of human develop
ment among heathen nations, led him to recognise everywhere a law of
undeniable, authority in the hearts of men, and to consider the law,
under the special Mosaic form, as the representative of the universal
law in force for all mankind ; this is evident from Rom. ii. Hence, we
cannot allow that Paul, wherever he speaks of vofws, had only in his
thoughts the Mosaic law ; but, on the contrary, we must maintain that
when he represents the law as one that condemns man, reveals his guilt,
it appears to him as the representative of the divine law as it reveals
itself, and is applicable to all mankind though less clearly. Although
Paul, when he speaks of the curse of the law, Gal. iii. 13, and describes
it as "the handwriting of ordinances," Col. ii. 14, must have the Jews
immediately in view, who were conscious of the obligation of the law,
yet certainly, according to his conceptions, it relates to all mankind.
As long as the law was in force, it denounced a curse on all who did not
obey it, as the observance of it was the only means for participating in
the kingdom of God, and obtaining eternal life. Hence the curse pro
nounced by it must be first taken away, that "the blessing of Abraham"
which related to all mankind might come upon the Gentiles ; Gal. iii. 14.
Hence also among the heathen the revelation of the opyri 6eov (to ac
complish which is the work of the law), Rom. iv. 15, must precede, and
they must obtain the knowledge that through Christ they are freed from
this opyfi in order to be partakers of redemption. These remarks are
of force against the views of Riickert and Usteri. — See especially their
Commentary on Gal. iii. 13.
THE JEWS AND GENTILES. 430
of connexion or entrance in men's minds, and as such a point
of connexion Paul on all occasions employs it in arguing with
the Gentiles.
The apostle places in opposition to each other the Jews
incorporated in the kingdom of God, and the heathen who
were living without God ; still he does not put all who were
living in heathenism on the same level. Certainly he could
not say of every individual, what he says of the corrupt mass
in general, Eph. iv. 19, that they had given themselves up to
the indulgence of their lusts with a suppression of all moral
feeling; he no doubt recognised in the civil and domestic
virtues of the heathen some scattered rays of the repressed
knowledge of God. In this respect he says, comparing the
heathen with the Jews, that where the former fulfilled in
some cases the commands of the law, following the law
written on their hearts, they thereby passed sentence of con
demnation on the Jews, to whom the positive law had been
given, of which they boasted, but neglected to obey it. Not
that we can suppose him to mean, that in any instance there
was anything like a perfect fulfilment of the law. To suppose
this would be in direct contradiction to what Paul affirms
respecting the consciousness of guilt universally awakened by
the law, that it could only call forth a sense of sin and
deserved punishment ; we cannot separate a single act from
the whole life, if with Paul we refer everything to the anima
ting disposition, and do not form our estimate according to
the outward value of good works. Where the whole of the
internal life was not animated by that which must be the
principle of all true goodness, that principle could not perfectly
operate even for a single moment. Still the repressed higher
nature of man, the seat of the law of God, gave more or fewer
signs of its existence.
From the Jewish and from the Gentile standing-points there
was only one mode of transition to a state of salvation, the
consciousness of an inward disunion between the divine and
the undivine in human nature, and proceeding from that,
the consciousness of the need of redemption. And hence
there were two hindrances which obstructed the attainment of
salvation by men; either the gross security of heathenism,
where the higher movements of life were entirely suppressed
by the dominion of sinful pleasure, or the Jewish merit of
440 THE JEWS AND GENTILES.
works and self-righteousness, where men, pacifying their con
sciences by the show of devotion and of fulfilling the law,
deceived themselves, and supposed that, by the mechanism of
outward religious exercises, or by the performance of certain
actions which wore the appearance of good works, they had
attained the essence of the holiness required by the divine
law. In reference to the latter, Paul says of the Jews, Horn,
x. 3, that since they knew not the essence of true holiness
which avails before God and can be imparted by God alone,
and since they esteemed their own works to be genuine holi
ness — they could not perceive their insufficiency, and hence
they could not appropriate the holiness revealed and imparted
by God.1 As the manner in which the Jews, insensible of
their need of divine aid, endeavoured to attain holiness by the
observance of the law, was the cause of their not attaining it ;
so on the other hand the heathen — those, namely, in whom
self-conceit of another kind had not been produced by a phi
losophical training — since no such spiritual pride counteracted
the feeling of the need of redemption in their minds, when
once through particular circumstances, inward experiences,
or perhaps through the preaching of the gospel,2 the voice of
the la,w had been distinctly heard — were easily awakened to
this feeling of helplessness, and thus led to faith in the
Kedeemer.3
In another respect also, Paul compares the Jewish and the
heathen or Grecian standing-points with one another. Among
the Jews the predominance of the sensuous element in their
1 The Sutaioo-uvr) TOV 6fov here denote a righteousness which avails
before God, and originates with him, in opposition to one which men
suppose may be attained by their own power and works, and which,
though men may deceive themselves by false appearances, cannot stand
in the sight of a holy omniscient God. It denotes accordingly the
manner in which men are justified through faith in Christ, in oppo'si-
tion to the righteousness of the law or of works. The apostle uses the
expression vTrfrdyna-av, since he considers the cause of their not receiv
ing what God is willing to bestow, to be a spirit of insubordination, a
want of humility and acquiescence in the divine arrangements.
2 Which in this connexion must present itself at first as a revelation
of the divine wrath against sin. Eom. i. 18.
3 Hence, naturally, as among the Jews it was precisely their 5ia>K(?v
vofj.ov SiKaiocrvvrjs which was the cause of their not attaining true right
eousness, so among the heathen their ^77 Siw/ce?;' was the cause of their
more easily attaining it.
THE JEWS AND GENTILES. 441
religious life, which, being unsusceptible of the internal reve
lation of divine power, sought for extraordinary events in the
world of the senses as marks of the divine, a tendency which
he distinguished by the name of sign-seeking, was opposed to
faith in a crucified Redeemer, who had appeared in " the form
of a servant." This revelation of the power of God, where the
sensual man could perceive only weakness and ignominy, must
have been a stumbling-block to their sign-seeking minds,
which longed for a Messiah in visible earthly glory as the
founder of a visible kingdom. Among the educated portion
of the Greeks, on the contrary, that one-sided tendency, which
sought only for the satisfaction of a love of knowledge in a
new religion, the one-sided predominance of speculation, which
Paul designated wisdom-seeking and philosophical conceit —
opposed faith in that preaching which did not begin with the
solution of intellectual difficulties, but with offering satisfac
tion to hearts that longed for the forgiveness of sin and sanc-
tification ; hence to this class of persons the doctrine which did
not fulfil the expectations of their wisdom-seeking tendency,
and demanded the renunciation of their imaginary wisdom,
must have appeared as foolishness; 1 Cor. i. 22, 23. Thus Paul
said in reference to the Greeks, 1 Cor. iii. 18, He who thinks
himself wise, let him become a fool, that he may be able to
find true wisdom in the gospel. To the Jews the language
addressed on the Pauline principles would be, He who esteems
himself righteous must first become in his own eyes a sinner,
that he may find in the gospel true righteousness. Thus must
nations as well as individuals be brought to their own experi
ence, to a sense of the insufficiency of their own wisdom and
righteousness, in order, by feeling their need of help, to be in
a suitable state for receiving that redemption which was pre
pared for all mankind ; Rom. xi. 32. The whole history of
mankind has redemption for its object, and there are, accord
ing to the measure of the diversified standing-points of human
development, diversified degrees of preparation ; but this is
the central point to which the whole history of man tends,
where all the lines in the development of individual genera
tions and nations meet. According to this, we must under
stand what Paul says, that God sent his Son into the world in
the fulness of time, Gal. iv. 4 — when he speaks, Eph. iii. 9, of
the mystery of redemption as hidden from eternity in God —
442 NECESSITY OP REDEMPTION.
and which was to be fulfilled in the dispensation of the fulness
of time, Eph. i. 10. In the divine counsels he could not sup
pose there was a before and after; but by this mode of
expression he marks the internal relation of the divine counsels
and works to each other, the actual establishment of the king
dom of God among men by redemption, the final aim of the
whole earthly creation by which its destiny will be completely
fulfilled. This globe is created and destined for the purpose of
being the seat of the kingdom of God, of being animated by
the kingdom of God, the body of which the kingdom of God
is the soul. The end of all created existence is that it may
contribute to the glory of God, or to reveal God in his glory.
But in order that this may be really accomplished, it must be
with consciousness and freedom, and these are qualities which
can be found only in an assemblage of rational beings. It
is such an assemblage therefore which is distinguished by the
name of the kingdom of God; and when the reason of the
creature has been brought by sin into a state of contrariety
with the end of its existence, Redemption is a necessary con
dition of establishing the kingdom of God on this globe.
Paul could not indeed have represented human nature
under the aspect of its need of redemption in this manner, if
he had not been led to the depths of self-knowledge by his
own peculiar development. But so far was he from mingling
a foreign element with the doctrine of Christ, that from his
own experience he has drawn a picture which every man, who
like Paul has striven after holiness, must verify from his self-
knowledge ; it is a picture, too, the truth of which is presup
posed by the personal instructions of Christ, as we shall find
by reading the three first gospels. We gather this not so
much from single expressions of Christ respecting the consti
tution of human nature, as from the representations he gives
of the work lie had to accomplish in its relation to mankind.1
When he compares Christianity to leaven which was designed
to leaven the whole mass into which it was cast, he intimates
the necessity of transforming human nature by a new higher
element of life which would be infused into it by Christianity.
Christ calls himself the Physician of mankind ; he says that
1 That the work of Christ presupposes a condition of corruption and
elplessness, is acknowledged by De Wctte in his Biblisclien Dogmatik,
246.
NECESSITY OF REDEMPTION. 443
he came only for the sick, for sinners ; Matt. ix. 13 ; Luke v.
32. It is impossible that by such language he could intend
to divide men into two classes — the sick, those who were
burdened with sin, and who needed his aid ; — and the righteous,
those in health and who needed not his assistance or could
easily dispense with it ; for the persons in reference to whose
objections he uttered this declaration, he would certainly have
recognised least of all as righteous and healthy. Rather would
he have said, that as he came only as a Physician for the sick,
as a Redeemer for sinners, he could only fulfil his mission
in the case of those who, conscious of disease and sin, were
willing to receive him as Physician and Redeemer ; that he
was come in vain for those who were not disposed to acknow
ledge their need of healing and redemption. Christ, when he
draws the lines of that moral ideal after which his disciples
are to aspire, never expresses his reliance on the moral capa
bilities of human nature, on the powers of reason ; he appeals
rather to the consciousness of spiritual insufficiency, the sense
of the need of illumination by a higher divine light, of sancti-
fication by the power of a divine life ; wants like these he
promises to satisfy. Hence in his Sermon on the Mount,
he begins with pronouncing blessed such a tendency of the
disposition, since it will surely attain what it seeks ; compare
Matt. xi. 28. When Christ, Matt. xix. Luke xvii. enjoined on
the rich man who asked him what he must do to inherit
eternal life — to " keep the commandments," it is by no means
inconsistent with what Paul asserts of the insufficiency of
the works of the law for the attainment of salvation, but is
identical with it, only under another form and aspect. Christ
wished to lead this individual, who according to the Jewish
notions was righteous, to a consciousness that outward con
formity to the law by no means involved the disposition that
was required for participation in the kingdom of God. The
test of renouncing self and the world which he imposed upon
him, would lead one who was still entangled in the love of
earthly things, though from his youth he had lived in out
ward conformity to the law, to feel that ho was destitute of
this disposition. Nor can we, from the expressions in which
children are represented as models of the state of mind with
which men must enter the kingdom of God, Matt. xix. 14,
Luke xviii. 15, infer the doctrine of the incorruption of
444 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION.
human nature,1 partly because the point of comparison is only
the simplicity and compliance of children, the consciousness
of immaturity,2 the disclaiming of imaginary preeminence, the
renunciation of prejudices ; and partly because childhood is
an age in which the tendency to sin is less developed,3 but by
no means implies the non-existence of such a tendency. Still
Christ could not have used these and similar expressions (as in
Matt. xvii. 10) in commendation of what existed in children
as an undeveloped bud, if he had not recognised in them
a divine impress, a glimmering knowledge of God, which when
brought from the first into communion with Christ, was carried
back to its original, and thereby preserved from the reaction
of the sinful principle.4 And the recognition of a something
in human nature allied to the divine, is implied in what Christ
says of the eye of the spirit, of that which is the light of the
inner man, by the relation of which to the source of light, the
whole direction and complexion of the life is determined ; so
that, either by keeping up a connexion with its divine source,
light is spread over the life of man, or if the eye be darkened
by the prevalence of a \vorldly tendency, the whole life is
involved in darkness. But as we have seen, Paul presupposes
such an undeniable and partially illuminating knowledge of
God in human nature, and this assumption is supported by
what he says of the various degrees of moral development
among mankind.
The idea of the need of redemption leads us to the work of
redemption accomplished by Christ. Paul distinguishes in
the work of Christ, his doing and his suffering. To sin, which
from the first transgression has reigned over all mankind, he
opposes the perfect holy life of Christ. To the evil whose
consummation is death, representing itself as punishment in
connexion with sin by virtue of the feeling of guilt and con-
1 As Baumgarten Crusius appears to do in his Biblisclicn Dogmatik,
p. 362.
2 See my Leben Jesu, p. 547.
3 On this account Paul in 1 Cor. xiv. 20, speaks of a ftiTnd£eii> rfj /CCIK/CC.
4 The qualities which Christ attributes to children, are entirely op
posed to a harsh Angustinian theology, and the gloomy view of life
founded upon it, although this must be recognised as relatively a
necessary step in the development of the Christian life, in reference to
certain circumstances, and as the root of important phenomena in the
history of the church.
THE WORK OF REDEMPTION. 445
damnation founded in the conscience, he opposes the suffer
ings of Christ as the Holy One ; which, as they have no
reference to sins of his own, can only relate to the sins of all
mankind, for whose redemption they were endured. In
reference to the former, Paul says in Horn. viii. 3, that what
was impossible to the law, what it was unable to effect owing
to the predominant sinfulness in human nature, (namely to
destroy the reign of sin in human nature, which the law
aimed to effect by its holy commands,) was accomplished by
God, when he sent his Son into the world in that human
nature which hitherto had been under the dominion of sin,,
and when he condemned sin, that is, despoiled it of its power
and supremacy, and manifested its powerlessness in that
human nature, over which it had before reigned, in order that
the requirements of the law might be fulfilled in believers, as
those whose lives were governed not by sinful desire but by
the Spirit, the divine vital principle of the Spirit that pro
ceeded from Christ.1 Paul does not here speak of any par
ticular point in the life of Christ, but contemplates it as a
whole, by which the perfect holiness required by the law was
realized. Thus the reign of holiness in human nature suc-
ceeds to the reign of sin, the latter is now destroyed and the
former established objectively in human nature; and from this
objective foundation its continued development proceeds.
And in no other way can the human race be brought to fulfil
their destiny, the realization of the kingdom of God, which
cannot proceed from sin and estrangement from God, but
must take its commencement from a perfectly holy life, pre
senting a perfect union of the divine and the human. The
Spirit of Christ, from which this realization of the ideal of
holiness proceeded in his own life, is also the same by which
the life of believers, who are received into his fellowship, is
continually formed according to this archetype. In Rom. v. 1 8,
1 The other interpretation of this passage, according to which it
means that Christ bore for men the punishment attached to sin by the
law, appears to me not to be favoured by the context, for it is most
natural to refer the d,8vi>u.Tov TOV v'/mov in the first class to the Kara-
Kflvttv rriv d/j.apriav in the last. But this will not suit if we take the
first in the sense of condemning and punishing, for it was precisely this
which the law could do ; but to condemn sin in the sense in which the
•word is used in John xvi. 11, and xii. 31, the law was prevented from
doing by the opposition of the adp£.
446 THE WORK OF REDEMPTION.
Paul opposes to the one sin of Adam the one holy work
(the tV ^iKaiufia) of Christ. And if, induced by the contrast
to the one sin of Adam, he had in view one act especially of
Christ, the offering up of himself, as an act of love to God and
man, and of voluntary obedience to God, still this single act,
even according to Paul's statement, ought not to be considered
as something isolated, but as the closing scene in harmony
•with the whole, by which he completed the realization of the
ideal of holiness in human nature, and banished sin from it.
In this view indeed the whole life of Christ may be considered
as one holy work. As by one sin, the first by which a com
mencement was made of a life of sin in the human race, sin,
and with sin condemnation and death, spread among all man
kind ; so from this one holy life of Christ, holiness and a life
of eternal happiness resulted for all mankind. This holy life
of Christ, God would consider as the act of the human race,
but it can only be realized in those who, by an act of free
self-determination, appropriate this work accomplished for all,
and by this surrender of themselves enter through Christ into
a new relation with God; those who through faith are
released from the connexion with the life of sin propagated
from Adam, and enter into the fellowship of a holy life with
Christ. Since they are thus in union with Christ, in the
fellowship of his Spirit, for his sake they are presented as
ctKdioi before God, and partake of all that is indissolubly con
nected with the holiness of Christ and of his eternally blessed
life. In this sense. Paul says that from the one StKaiuifjia of
Christ, objective <WatWie and the consequent title to £wr)
comes upon all (Horn. v. 18); that by the obedience of one
many shall be made righteous (v. 19) ; in this latter passage,
he probably blends the objective and the subjective ; the ob
jective imputation of the ideal of holiness realized by Christ,
founded in the divine counsels, or the manner in which the
human race appear in the divine sight ; and the consequent
subjective realization, gradually developed, which proceeds
from faith.
With respect to the second point, the sufferings of Christ
as such, we find this (not to mention other passages where
this idea forms the basis) distinctly stated in two places. In
Gal. iii. 13, after the apostle had said that the law only passed
CHRIST'S HUMILIATION AND GLORIFICATION. 447
ecntence of condemnation upon men1 who had shown that
they were guilty of violating it, he adds, that Christ has freed
them from this condemnation since on their account and in
their stead2 he had borne this condemnation, by suffering the
punishment of the cross as a person accused by the law. The
second place is 2 Cor. v. 21. Him who knew no sin, the
sinless one, God has made sin for our sakes (the abstract for
the concrete) ; he has made him a sinner, he has allowed him
to appear as a sufferer on account of sin, that we might become
through him the righteousness of God, that is, such as may
appear before God as righteous ; that therefore as Christ the
Holy One entered by his sufferings into the fellowship of our
guilt, so we sinners enter into the fellowship of his holiness.
In accordance with these views, Paul divided the life of
Christ into two parts. At first Christ presented himself as a
weak mortal, although conscious of possessing a divine nature
and dignity, submitting to all the wants and limitations of
earthly humanity, partaking of all those evils which affect
human nature in connexion with sin, and as the punishment
1 Although the use of Tjjuas (Gal. iii. 13) and the contrast with the
I0V7J, v. 14, make it probable that Paul had the Jews chiefly in his
thoughts, yet this by no means excludes a reference to mankind in
general ; (agreeably to what we have already said respecting the ideal
and universal relation of the law.) Paul indeed says particularly of the
Jews, that they could not attain righteousness by the law, as they ex
pected, but, on the contrary, it denounced its curse against them, from,
which they must first be freed. But since the i>6/j.os corresponds to the
universal law written on the heart, so also this curse pronounced by the
law corresponds to the sentence of condemnation which that internal law
pronounces in the consciences of men. The curse is only first expressly
pronounced among the Jews, and presented more distinctly to their
consciousness ; just as the express promises were first made to them.
See the excellent remarks in Bengel's Gnomon. On this supposition,
the natural connexion between v. 13 and 14, is apparent, which is
founded in the thought that the heathen must be first freed from the
curse which rests on them as sinners, in order that the blessing which
was to extend itself from Abraham to all mankind, and which could not
be fulfilled in those who were estranged from God by guilt, might be
fulfilled in them. -The same sentiment, though expressed in another
form, occurs in all the passages where it is said that all need forgiveness
of sins. As in Paul's mind there was a common reference to Jews and
Gentiles, he joins them together in the Aa/Sw^fi/. And afterwards he
says, that Christ when he appeared among that nation who typified the
theocracy for the whole human race, and satisfied the requirements of
the law, performed this for the whole human race, who therefore were
brought into a filial relation to God.
2 Both these ideas may be included in the vTrep 7j(uaJv.
448 CHRIST'S HUMILIATION AND GLORIFICATION.
of sin, so that in his outward appearance and condition he
placed himself entirely on a level with men suffering on
account of sin. The consummation of this state was the
crucifixion, as the consummation of the misery entailed by
sin is presented in death. The second part was the life of
Christ risen and glorified, in which his unchangeable divine
and blessed life reveals itself in perfection, corresponding to
that perfect holiness which he manifested on earth — for as sin
and death, so are sinlessness and a life of eternal blessedness
correlative ideas in Paul's writings ; and as in Christ's risen
and glorified humanity, that divine life is presented which
corresponds to perfect holiness, so it is a practical proof that
he in the earlier portion of his life fulfilled the law of holiness
in and for human nature, and, by enduring the sufferings
incurred through sin, effected the release of mankind from
the guilt and punishment, and has assured to them eternal
life, which will be communicated to all who enter into fellow
ship w7ith him by faith. Thus it is declared in 2 Cor. xiii. 4,
that though Christ was crucified owing to human weakness,
the crucifixion was the closing point of his life in the partici
pation of human weakness — yet since his resurrection, he
enjoys a life of divine power without any mixture of human
weakness. In Rom. vi. 16, the death of Christ is spoken of
as bearing a relation to sin — as an event which, but for sin,
would not have taken place, and had for its only object the
blotting out of sin; and that having perfectly attained that
end, it was not to be repeated. The earthly life and sufferings
of Christ bear a relation to sin, as being the means of re
deeming the human race from it. But now the risen and
glorified Saviour, having once completed the redemption of
human nature, is separated from all relation to sin and the
evils connected with it, and exalted above all conflicts and
earthly weakness, lives in divine power and blessedness, to
the glory of God. He no longer endures the sufferings to
which human nature became subject by sin, and he needs to
perform nothing more for the extinction of sin, having done
this once for all. There remains only his positive operation
for the glory of God, without the negative reference to the
extinction of sin. Conscious of his divinity, he did not
eagerly retain (Philip, ii. 6) equality with God for the mere
exhibition of it, but divested himself of the divine glory which
appertained to him, presented himself in the form of human
SUFFERINGS AND RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. 449
dependence, humbled himself and became obedient unto
death, even the ignominious death of the cross.1 Wherefore —
on account of this perfect obedience rendered under all human
weakness and suffering — God has exalted him to the highest
dignity and rule in the kingdom of God. According to this
train of ideas, as the sufferings of Christ are represented as
having a relation to sin, so his resurrection is adduced as a
practical evidence of the freedom from sin and the justifica
tion bestowed by him, by virtue of the connexion existing,
not only between sin and death, but between righteousness
and eternal life. And in reference to the importance of the
resurrection of Christ, as an objective proof of the release of
human nature from the guilt of sin and the death that it
involved, the apostle says in 1 Cor. xv. 17, " If Christ be not
risen, ye are yet in your sins." From this connexion of ideas
it follows, that the sufferings of Christ must be always con
sidered in union with his whole life and as the close and
consummation of it ; and with a twofold reference which,
according to the Pauline doctrine, they bear to the completion
of the work of redemption, namely, the appropriation of
human guilt, by entering into the suffering condition of man
— and the perfect realization of the moral law. And there
fore, when Paul speaks of what Christ effected by his blood
and his cross, one single point which forms the consummation
and close of the whole stands for that whole, according to a
mode of expression common to the sacred writers, though in
its full significance it can be understood only in connexion
with all the rest.
As the result of this work of Christ for sinful mankind,
Paul specifies reconciliation with God, redemption, justification.
With respect to the idea of reconciliation, it cannot have been
conceived by Paul as if men had been objects of the divine
wrath and hatred, till Christ appeasing the divine justice by
his sufferings, by his timely intervention reconciled an of
fended God to mankind, and made them again the objects of
i An illustration of Paul's language may be found in an Epistle of
Constantino, relating to some Christians who eagerly seized on an op
portunity of returning from exile to their native country, olov ap-Tray^d
ri T-r\v eirdvoSov 7roi»jo-a,uefo:, Euseb. de Vita Constan. ii. 31, and the
words of Eusebius himself, Hist. Ecdes. viii. 12, respecting those who
preferred, rather than surrendering themselves to the heathen, iov
6a.va.rov apiioy^a. Qtfj.(vr>i rjjs rwv
VOL. I. GG
450 PAULINE IDEA OF RECONCILIATION.
his love ; for the plan of redemption presupposes the love of
God towards the race that needed redemption, and Paul con
siders the sending of Christ, and his living and suffering for
mankind, as the revelation of the superabounding love and
grace of God; Eph. iii. 19; Titus hi. 4; Rom. v. 8; viii. 32.
And this counsel of God's love he represents as eternal, sa
that the notion of an influence on God produced in time falls
to the ground, since the whole life and sufferings of Christ
were only the completion of the eternal counsel of divine
love. Therefore Paul never says, that God being hostile to
men, became reconciled to them through Christ, but that
men who were the enemies of God became reconciled to him ;
Kom. v. 10; 2 Cor. v. 16.1 Thus he calls on men to be re
conciled to God; 2 Cor. v. 20. The obstacle exists on the
side of men, and owing to this they do not receive the reve
lation of the love of God into their self-consciousness; and
since by the redeeming work of Christ this obstacle is taken
away, it is said of him that he has reconciled man to God,
and made him an object of divine love.
From what has been said, we may attach merely a subjec
tive meaning to reconciliation ; and the ideas presupposed by
it of enmity with God and of God's wrath may appear to be
only indications of subjective relations, in which man finds
himself in a certain state of disposition towards God — -indica
tions of the manner in which God presents himself to the
conscience of a man estranged from him by sin, or the man
ner in which the knowledge of God must develop itself in
connexion with the consciousness of guilt. Thus by the term
Reconciliation only such an influence on the disposition of
man may be denoted, by which it is delivered from its former
state, and placed in another relation towards God. Since
Christ by his whole life, by his words and works, and espe
cially by his participation in the sufferings of humanity, and
by his sufferings for men, has revealed God's love towards
1 If we only reflect upon the connexion of the objective and the sub
jective in the doctrine of Paul respecting the reconciliation of men with
God, it will easily appear that this passage is not chargeable with that
want of logical connexion and clearness of conception, which one of the
most noted expositors of the Pauline Epistles — Riickert — fancied that
he found in it : the love of truth has, however, led this estimable man
to a more correct view, and in the last edition of hb able Commentary
on the Romans, he has improved his analysis.
PAULINE IDEA OF RECONCILIATION. 451
those who must have felt themselves estranged from him by
sin — and has exhibited his sufferings as a pledge of the for
giving love of God, and his resurrection as a pledge of the
eternal life destined for them, — thus he has kindled a recipro
cal love and childlike confidence towards God in the souls of
those who were unable to free themselves from the state of
disquietude which was produced by the consciousness of guilt.
The reconciliation of man to God (according to this view)
consists in nothing else than the alteration of disposition aris
ing from the revelation of God's love towards fallen humanity,
which this revelation produces in their self-consciousness.
Still it is supposed that the reconciliation of man to God is
not the result of any amendment on the part of the former,
but the amendment is the result of the reconciliation, since
through the new determination of the self-consciousness by
means of love and confidence towards God, an altogether new
direction of the life, the source of all real amendment turned
towards God and away from sin is produced. According to
this view also, it is presupposed that man, who felt himself
estranged from God by sin, finds in himself no ground of
confidence towards God, and requires an objective ground, a
practical revelation to which his own self-consciousness can
attach itself, in order to excite and support his confidence.
This latter is, without doubt, a leading point of the Pauline
system, as it is of the doctrine of the New Testament in gene-
mi. All the exhortations and encouragements of the apostle
proceed continually from a reference to the practical revela
tion of God's redeeming love. Nor can it be a valid objection,
on the other hand, that Paid, in 2 Cor. v. 20, addressing those
who were already believers, and calling on them to be recon
ciled to God, meant that by amendment they entered into a
new relation to God, and were brought out of their former
state of enmity ; for it makes here no difference whether Paul
is speaking to those who had already professed Christianity,
or to those with whom this was not the case. In every case,
according to his conceptions, the believing appropriation of
the reconciliation of man with God effected through Christ
was accompanied by a new direction of the life, and where
this did not ensue, it was a sign that the believing appropria
tion had not taken place, and the man was still destitute of
that reconciliation with God from which amendment pro-
452 PAULINE IDEA OF RECONCILIATION.
ceeds.1 In that very passage Paul does not say, Amend your
selves in order that you may be reconciled to God; but
rather, Let not the grace of reconciliation appear to be in
vain for you, as if you had not appropriated it. By Christ's
offering up his life for man estranged from God, man is objec
tively reconciled to God. God has removed that which made
the separation between himself and man. But what has been
objectively accomplished for all mankind, must now be ap
propriated by each individual and thus become subjective.
Hence, according to these different points of view, Paul could
say — " Be ye reconciled (subjectively} to God," and " We are
reconciled (objectively) to God by the death of his Son;"
Horn. v. 10.
But those views in conformity to which the life and suffer
ings of Christ are considered merely as a manifestation of
God's love, and the reconciliation effected by him as the sub
jective influence of this manifestation on the human heart,
appear by no means adequate to the meaning of the Pauline
declarations already quoted respecting the redemption of
Christ. And although the gross anthropopathical notion of
God's reconciliation with man, is evidently inconsistent with
Paul's train of ideas, it does not follow, that by the expression
reconciliation, only a subjective change in the disposition of
man is denoted, for we are by no means justified in explaining
the correlative ideas of an enmity with God, and a wrath of
God merely as subjective, and among the various designations
of the divine attributes connected with them, acknowledge a
reality merely in the idea of the love of God. On the con
trary, the common fact of human consciousness, according to
which a man addicted to sin feels himself estranged from God,
and cannot get rid of the feeling of his guilt and ill-deserts, re
veals to us a deeper objective ground in the moral constitution
of the universe and in the essence of God. In this universal
fact, we have a witness of the revelation of God's holiness in
the consciences of mankind, which is as undeniable as the
revelation of his love. By the " wrath of God" though in an
anthropopathical form, something objective and real is signi
fied, which is not fully expressed by the idea of punishment,
but includes what is the ground of all punishment, (on which,
account this phrase " the wrath of God" is sometimes used to
1 This is distinctly marked by his exhortation K
ON FORGIVENESS OF SINS. 453
express merely punishment,) the ground of the necessary con
nexion between sin and evil, the absolute contrariety existing
between God as the Holy One and sin.1 God recognises evil
as evil, as that which stands in contrariety to his holiness,
rebels against him and his holy order, and would exist in
dependent of him. The mode in which God recognises evil,
is also a sentence of condemnation upon it, and is a proof of
its powerlessness and wretchedness. Evil is denied, if not
contemplated as something occupying the place of God.
Thus in the mode by which man is freed by the love of
God from that unhappy relation to God, in which he stands
owing to the divine holiness, the love of God reveals itself
only in connexion with his holiness, or as holy love. This
connexion is pointed out by Paul in Rom. iii. 24. In this
passage, he contrasts the revelation of God's holiness at that
time by the publication of the gospel, and the non-punish
ment of past sins before the appearance of the gospel. By the
7rdp£(ri£ rdiv ci^uap-T^ttrwv and the avo^r} TOV Oeov he under
stands the manner in which the conduct of God was manifested
in reference to sin before the publication of the gospel, especially
towards the heathen world, who knew nothing of the Old
Testament revelations of the holiness of God in opposition to
sin, and also towards the Jews, who, notwithstanding these
testimonies in the delay of the divine judgments for their
sins, instead of interpreting the longsuffering of God as a call
to repentance, were sunk in carnal security. We may com
pare with this, Paul's language in Acts xvii. 30, speaking of
the times of ignorance that God had overlooked. Though
this is to be understood only relatively, in reference to the
different standing-points of historical development, for Paul
recognised, as we have already shown, in the moral nature of
the heathen, a revelation of the divine law, of the divine
holiness and punitive justice. But under their peculiar
circumstances, there was from a kind of necessity a general
obscuration of that religious and moral knowledge by which
their thinking and acting was regulated. This induced on
the part of God a passing over, a non-imputation of offences;
though the reckoning taken of transgressions would never go
beyond the measure of the possible knowledge of the law;
Rom. v. 13. Thus there may be a chargeableness and a non-
1 Compare Twcsten's Dogmatik, ii. p. 146.
454 ON FORGIVENESS OF SINS.
chargeableness under different aspects, by which the apparent
contradictions in Paul's language may be reconciled.
Paul in Rom. iii. 25, declares that for both the Jews and
heathens a revelation of the divine wrath must precede the
revelation of the grace that forgives sin. The Trapeo-tc denotes
only what was negative and temporary, the non-punishment
of past sins on the part of God ; so that the sense of the guilt
of sin is not presupposed, and the removal Of that sense is not
effected.1 The a^eonc, on the other hand, denotes objectively
that act of God by which sin is really forgiven, that is, is
considered in relation to God and the moral constitution of
the universe as not existing ; and, subjectively, that operation
in the heart of man by which it is really freed from the con
sciousness of guilt ; this means far more than the non-punish
ment of sin during a certain period. In those to whom this
act of God relates, the consciousness of guilt and of the divine
ojoy>), the subjective revelation of the divine punitive justice, is
presupposed ; and the operation that takes place in their
dispositions necessarily implies forsaking a life of sin, and the
renunciation of all fellowship with sin. According to the
connexion of ideas in Paul's mind, we are led to take this
view of the subject. In contrast with the former apparent
overlooking of sin on the part of God, the holiness of God at
this time is now manifested by his openly exhibiting Christ,
through his offering up of himself, as a reconciler or sin-
offering for the sins of mankind, so that he verifies himself as
the Holy One, and permits every one to appear before him as
holy,2 who shows that he is in fellowship with Christ by faith.
The holiness of God manifests itself (according to the Pauline
connexion of ideas already noticed) in the life and death of
Christ in a twofold manner. First, inasmuch as he completely
realized (in opposition to sin which had hitherto been pre
dominant in human nature) that holy law to which the life of
man was designed to correspond, — made satisfaction to the
moral order of the universe, and glorified God in that nature
which was originally designed to glorify him. God has verified
1 In scholastic language, ira'petns may be referred to the voluntas
signi, and afyecns to the voluntas beneplaciti.
2 That we ought not to translate SlKaios righteous, but holy, appears
%>m that meaning of this word which lies at the basis of SiKaiouv, to
declare a person St/catos.
THE SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST.
455
himself as the Holy One, since he forgives sin only on the
condition of the perfect fulfilment of the law ; he has shown
that he remits nothing from the requirements of perfect holi
ness, and we always bear in mind that this remission to those
who' through it obtain justification, is not a mere outward act,
but becomes in all the cause and pledge of the fulfilment of
the law. Secondly, inasmuch as Christ, as perfectly holy,
underwent those sufferings which the divine holiness, con
sidered as punitive justice l in its opposition against sin, had
suspended over human nature. We are not to conceive of
this, as if God arbitrarily imposed these sufferings, or Christ
had arbitrarily subjected himself to them ; but that it was
grounded on the assumption of human nature in its present
condition and relation to God — as the divine punitive justice
revealed itself to them who were suffering the consequences
of sin— and thus it was accomplished through the historical
development of the life of Christ devoted to conflict with the
sin that reigned in the human race, and through his Conde
scending to their condition from the sympathy of love.2
1 That divine attribute which reveals itself in the necessary con
nexion of sin and evil, is founded in the reaction of the holiness of God
against sin (= the wrath of God), exhibits itself in the reaction of the
moral order of the universe against evil, whence punishment proceeds.
If punishment is conceived of merely as a means of amendment, and
this is supposed to comprehend all that is intended by it, this is a
degradation of a rational being and of morality making it mechanical.
But if punishment is viewed aHirst as a revelation of the divine justice,
as an objective reaction of the moral order of the universe against evil,
another mode of viewing it also presents itself, according to which the
punishment necessary in itself is appointed by the love of God, in order,
since punishment and sin stand in this internal connexion with one
another, to lead thereby to a consciousness of sin and guilt, to make
rational creatures sensible of the relation they stand in to the moral
world, and thus to call forth the feeling of the need of redemption.
The self-will which rebels in sin against the moral order of the universe
and God's holy law, must be humbled by suffering before the holy
omnipotence of God and the majesty of his law. Where submission is
not yielded freely, it will be compelled. Without the idea of punish
ment, the reality of evil and the dignity of rational creatures cannot be
acknowledged. It belongs to the privilege of rational beings created m
the likeness of God, and distinguishes them from other natural objects,
that the idea of punishment finds its application in them. See the
excellent remarks of Twesten, in his Doynatik, i. p. 148.
2 The Pauline view of the work of redemption finds a point of con
nexion in Christ's words in Matt. xx. 28, whether we consider \\npov as
.a sum paid for release from captivity or slavery, or for redemption from
456 THE IDEAS OP AIIOAYTPnSn, 2HTHPIA.
With the idea of reconciliation, the ideas of
awTypia, StKaittHTiG are closely connected. The two first terms
are used in a wider and a narrower sense ; they denote the
deliverance from the guilt and punishment of sin, the <rwr^pm
ttTro rrJQ opyijg, Rorn. v. 9, first objectively as what has been
gained by Christ for the human race ; and also subjectively,
what is effectuated by progressive development in each indi
vidual by personal appropriation, from his first entrance into
fellowship with the Redeemer, to the complete participation
of his glory and blessedness in the perfected kingdom of God ;
but more especially what belongs to the perfect realization of
the idea, the complete freedom from sin and all its conse
quences, from all evil, — natural and moral.1
With respect to the idea of diKaiwatQ, in order to determine
it, we must refer to what we have already remarked on the
Pauline opposition to the common Jewish notion of righteous
ness. He sets out from the same point as his adversaries, as
far as he considers the participation in all the privileges and
blessings of the kingdom of God indissolubly connected with
the SiKaiorrvvrj, the genuine theocratic disposition and condi
tion of life. The correlative idea of righteousness in this
sense was blessedness, the participation of the blessings pro
mised through Abraham to all his posterity, the fulfilment of
all the promises relating to the kingdom of God, all the
privileges of the children of God ; and an entrance into all
the relations in which they stand to God. But Paul main-
deserved punishment ; also in the institution of the Holy Supper, (in
•which he evidently alluded to the connexion between the Passover and
the establishment of the Old Covenant,) which by the offering of him
self to obtain and confirm the forgiveness of sins to mankind, marked
the establishment of the New Covenant. The Pauline views are also
supported by the manner in which Christ adopts the ideas of the wrath
of God and of punitive justice from the Old Testament, without casting
a doubt on their validity. The parable of the Lost Son, and other ex
pressions which relate to forgiving love, offer no contradiction, but mark
precisely the side on which God reveals himself in the work of redemp
tion, and what, humanly speaking, could be the only motive to such an
act of God towards a race estranged from him by sin ; they do not, how
ever, determine the manner in which the result designed by divine love
is to be attained ; the form and order followed by the compassionate
love of God, for the love of God acts only as a holy and righteous
love.
1 airo\vTpucrts is found in the latter sense in Rom. viii. 23, Eph. i. 14 ;
and o-wT77pia in the latter sense in Rom. xiii. 11 ; 1 Pet. i. 5.
THE IDEA OP AIKAirUlS- 457
tained against the Jews and Judaizers, that by the law and
the working of the law, no one could attain this SiKatoavvri,
present himself a SiKaior before God, and enter into the
relation with God founded upon it ; but that every man
appears as a sinner in God's sight, till entering by faith into
fellowship with Christ (the only perfect SIKCUOQ by whom
mankind are delivered, in the way that we have described
from the state of a'juctpn'a), he presents himself in union with
Christ (EV XJOIOTW) as a clKaioc before God, and enters into
the entire relation with God, implied in this predicate, is
viewed by God as £t<tatog, and established in all the privileges
connected with this idea (ducocovrai). Consequently Paul in
cludes in the idea of £uccuWt£ that act of God, by which he
places the believer in Christ in the relation to himself of a
SiKatos, notwithstanding the sin that still cleaves to him.
Aif,cuo<rtrj'r7 denotes, then, the subjective appropriation of this
relation, the appearing righteous before God, by virtue of
faith in the Redeemer, and the whole new tendency and aim
of the life, as well as the whole new relation to God, now
received into the consciousness, which is necessarily connected
with it ; the righteousness or perfect holiness of Christ
appropriated by faith, as the objective ground of confidence
for the believer, and also as a new subjective principle of life.
Thus the righteousness of faith in the Pauline sense includes
the essence of a new disposition ; and hence the idea of
Stxatoavvri may easily pass into the idea of sanctification,
though the two ideas are originally distinct. Accordingly,
it is not any arbitrary act on the part of God, as if he regarded
and treated as sinless a man persisting in sin, simply because
he believes in Christ ; but the Objective on the part of God
corresponds to the /Subjective on the part of man, namely
faith, and this necessarily includes in itself a release from the
state inherited from Adam, from the whole life of sin and
the entrance into spiritual fellowship with the Redeemer, the
appropriation of his divine life. The realization of the
archetype of holiness through Christ contains the pledge that
this shall be realized in all those who are one with him by
faith, and are become the organs of his Spirit ; its germ
and principle is already imparted to them in believing,
although the fruit of a life perfectly conformed to the Re
deemer, can only be developed gradually in its temporal
458 THE NATURE OF FAITH.
manifestation. The connexion of these ideas will be rendered
clearer by developing the Pauline idea of faith.
What Paul distinguished by the name of Faith has its root
in the depths of the human disposition. It presupposes a
revelation of God in a direct relation to man, and faith is the
reception and vital appropriation of this divine revelation by
virtue of a receptivity for the divine in the human disposi
tion, of the tendency grounded in human nature and the need
implanted in it for believing in the supernatural and divine,
without which tendency and need, man, however his other
faculties might be cultivated, would be no more than an in
telligent animal.1 Something must be presented as an object
of knowledge adapted to this part of the human constitution,
but this object must be of a kind that can be correctly recog
nised and understood only by the disposition ; it presupposes
a certain tendency of the disposition, in order to be known
and understood, while it also tends to produce a decided and
enduring tendency of the disposition. An inward self-deter
mination of the spirit grounded in the direction of the will
is claimed by this object, while a new and constant self-deter
mination is produced by it. It is not in reference to the
object of faith, but to the inward subjective significance of
this act of the inner man, as that which forms the character
istic of true piety in all ages, that Paul compares the faith of
Abraham with the faith of Christians, Rom. iv. 19, where he
exhibits Abraham as a pattern of the righteousness of faith.
When Abraham received a promise from God, of which the
fulfilment seemed to be incompatible with the natural order
of things, he raised himself by an act of faith above this im
pediment, and the word of the Almighty which held forth
something invisible, had greater influence upon him than that
order of nature which presented itself to his understanding
and bodily senses. Hence this faith, as a practical acknow
ledgment of God in his almighty creative activity, and as a
reference of his whole life to the sense of his dependence on
God, a true honouring of God : 2 and it was this faith which
gave its peculiar significance and character to the life of
1 A state to which the intellectual fanaticism of a party in the pre
sent age, zealous for the pretended autonomy of reason, seeks to degrade
man.
2 A StSoVat 5<$£av rf 0e£. Rom. iv. 20.
ABRAHAM AN EXAMPLE OF FAITH. 459
Abraham. This faith, says Paul, was counted to him by God
for SiKawffv)>ri ; that is, although Abraham was not sinless,
(as no man is,) yet through this tendency of his inward life
by virtue of his faith, he entered into the relation to God of
a (HxaioQ ; and this was no arbitrary nominal act on the part
of God, but his faith was viewed by God, to whom the inward
soul of man is manifest, as an index of the disposition by
which Abraham became susceptible of all divine communica
tions, and from which alone the sanctification of his whole
life could proceed.1 Now this is applied by Paul to faith
with a special reference to Christianity. There is only added
n peculiar direction caused by the object on which this faith
is fixed, by which also the conception of it as subjective is
modified. Faith in this sense presupposes the consciousness
of sin, the renunciation of any merits of our own before
God, the longing after freedom from the dominion of sin, and
our not yielding to despair even under the most vivid sense
of sinfulness,2 but confiding in the grace of redemption; thus
there is an entrance into communion with the Redeemer, and
a new principle of life is received which continually penetrates
and transforms the old nature.
As far as faith includes entering into vital fellowship with
the Redeemer, and forsaking the old life of sin, it bears
a special reference to the two chief points in which Christ
presents himself as Redeemer, as the one who died for the
salvation of men, and who also by his resurrection gave them
the pledge of an eternal divine life : hence the two-fold refer
ence of faith to Jesus the Crucified and the Risen, the nega
tive and positive side of faith in relation to the old life which
it renounces and to the new life which it lays hold of ; it is
the spiritual act by virtue of which, in surrendering ourselves
to him who died for us, we die to a life of sin, to the world,
to ourselves, to all which we were before, — whether we are
Jews or Gentiles — and rise again in his fellowship, in the
power of his Spirit to a new life devoted to him and animated
by him. Hence it appeared to the apostle, as he develops
1 The 810 in Romans iv. 22, points to this connexion. Wherefore, as
faith includes all this, as the apostle had before explained, it was im
puted to Abraham as SIKCHOO-I^TJ, as if the SiKatoa-vvi] had already been
completed by it.
2 In this respect, a iriffrevfiv trap1 eAirfSo eV 3 \iriSi.
460 FAITH IN A CRUCIFIED AND RISEN SAVIOUR.
the sentiment in the sixth chapter of the Epistle to the
Romans, an absolute contradiction for any one to say that he
believed in the Redeemer and yet to continue in his old life
of sin. How shall we — he asks — we who (by the act of faith)
are dead to sin, live any longer therein ? And he demonstrates
from the nature of faith in its reference to the death and
resurrection of Christ, that faith cannot exist without a
renunciation of the former sinful life and the beginning of
a new divine life.
From the nature of Triarig as the governing principle of the
Christian life, arises the peculiarity of the Christian standing-
point, in relation to the Jewish as the legal standing-point ;
and the various indications of this contrariety serve more
distinctly to characterise the nature of TTICTTIQ as the funda
mental principle of the Christian life, on which account we
wish to consider the subject more in detail.
The law always presents itself as imperative, and makes the
salvation of men dependent on the perfect fulfilment of all its
commands. " Do all this, and thou shalt live." But since no
one can fulfil those conditions, the law can only produce
despair. But the gospel addresses the man who despairs of
himself, " Do not give thyself up to the feeling of despair.1
Ask not how thou canst make the impossible, possible. Thou
needest only receive the salvation prepared for thee ; only
believe, and thou hast with thy faith all that is needful for
thy inward life. Paul admirably illustrates this by applying
to it the passage in Deut. xxx. 12.2 Say not to thyself, Who
1 That interpretation of this passage, which supposes it to express the
opposition between Belief and Doubt,, appears to rne not to be supported
by the connexion, which leads us to expect a contrast of the righteous
ness by faith with the righteousness by works, the 6eou SiKaioffvvri with
the iSia; and the TOVT eari, which, from comparing Eom. ix. 8, and
other similar Pauline expressions, must be thus understood — " this is
equivalent to saying ; " and besides the relation of the Pauline words
to the Old Testament quotation, since, according to the interpretation
we have adopted, the Pauline application admirably suits, in spirit and
idea, the meaning of the Mosaic words, which is not the case with the
other interpretation.
2 This passage certainly refers to the Mosaic religious institutions,
and the words are fitted to distinguish them in their simple religious
and moral character from the other religions of the East. But as far as
the law, understood according to its own spirit, made certain require
ments which it gave no power to fulfil, Paul might justly apply these
words to mark the peculiar Christian standing-point ; he found an idea
THE GOSPEL CONTRASTED WITH THE LAW. 461
shall ascend to heaven and prepare a path for me thither1?
For Christ has descended from heaven and has prepared such
a path. To ask such a question, is to desire that Christ would
descend again from heaven for thy sake. But say not, Who
shall descend for me to the regions of the dead and deliver
me thence ? Christ has risen from the dead and has delivered
thee from the power of death. To ask this, is to desire that
Christ might now rise from the dead for thy sake, as if he
were not already men. Instead of asking such questions,
only let the gospel be cherished with vital power in thy
heart ; — believe in Him who descended from heaven and rose
from death, and thus obtained salvation for thee. Whoever
has this faith is truly pious and may be assured of salva
tion." '
Viewed in the light of legal Judaism, the commandments
appeared as merely an outward counteraction of the internal
corruption of man, which refused to be cured from without ;
it was only rendered more apparent by the law ; hence the
letter only tended to death ; it called forth the consciousness
of spiritual death and of merited unhappiness, 2 Cor. iii. 6.
The law in reference to its operation on the conscience could
be described only as vopoc ypafiparoc, Karaxpifftuc, Qa.vo.rov,
tt'juajon'ac.2 But when from faith in the Redeemer, a new
divine principle of life proceeds, when from faith in the
redeeming fatherly love of God, a child-like love develops
itself as the free impulse of a life devoted to God, when, in
stead of the former opposition between the human and divine
will, a union is formed between them — then the law no longer
appears as a written code, outwardly opposing a will estranged
here expressed which is only realized by Christianity, and is thus pro
phetic of what Christianity alone accomplishes.
1 Horn. x. 5. If Paul, in the second member of the contrast, has not
opposed Christ to Moses, and employed Christ's own words — and such,
no doubt, might have been found among the traditionary expressions of
Christ which would have been fit to mark this contrast — it does not
follow that he was unacquainted with any collection of the discourses of
Christ, or that he could not suppose any such work to be known by the
Christians at Rome, for his object was answered by borrowing from the
Mosaic writings a motto for the righteousness of faith, which would first,
find its proper fulfilment in the gospel.
2 It was perfectly consonant with the Pauline views to distinguish the
Law by these predicates, though it may be doubted whether, in Romans
viii. 2, the Mosaic law is intended by the word
4G2 THE LAW ABROGATED BY FAITH.
from God, but the spirit of the law is transfused into the
internal life of the believer. The life-giving spirit, har
monizing with the law, occupies the place of the dead and
death-producing letter. In the love developed from faith,
there is a voluntary fulfilment of the law proceeding from the
disposition, instead of actions the result of outward compulsion.
In a different sense from that in which Paul, from the stand
ing-point of the natural man, says that he had the law written
on his heart, he says, from the standing-point of believers, that
he carried the law of God in his heart — for on the former
standing-point, the law, even though internal, presents itself
as the command of a foreign higher voice, of a holy power
which man is forced to acknowledge in opposition to his cor
rupted will ; hence, it remains a deadly letter, whether we
consider it as an external law or an internal revelation. On
the contrary, in believers the divine law, by virtue of the new
spirit of life imparted by Christ, the Holy Spirit, appears not
merely an object of knowledge and recognition, but of an
efficacious love practically influencing the life. In this sense,
Paul says to believers, " Ye need not that I wrrite unto you,
for ye yourselves are taught of God," 1 Thess. iv. 9 ; and this
teaching does not signify something addressed to the faculty
of acquiring knowledge, but a real internal effect on the
springs of action. From what has been said, we may learn
in what sense Paul said of the law in reference to its moral
not less than to its ritual contents, that it was abrogated for
believers, that they were dead to it, and placed beyond its
jurisdiction ;* and as we have before remarked, no such
distinction in reference to its perpetuity can be made in the
r6tuoQ. The law is abrogated for the believer, and he is dead
to it, as far as it was a compulsory, imperative, accusing code,
as far as liKaioavv^ and £w>) were to be sought for by the fulfil
ment of its commands. Justification and salvation by faith
1 The being dead to the law, Rom. vii. 4, and Gal. ii. 19, the removal
of the law in its whole extent, Colos. ii. 14, " for the handwriting of
ordinances," which Christ nailed to his cross is manifestly the law, and
there must be a special reference to its moral precepts, for in this con
sisted the difficulty of fulfilling it. It Avould be altogether consonant
with the Pauline views, to understand the figurative expression in Rom.
vii. 2, of being dead to the law itself, (namely, this law in its outward
theocratic form,) though other exegetical reasons might oppose this in
terpretation in the former passages.
THE JEWIBH NOM02. 463
in the grace of redemption,1 are independent of every law to-
the believer. The law can produce only outward works2 by-
its compulsory enactments, but not those internal determi
nations of the life, which form the essence of true piety—
these proceed in the believer from the new animation by the
Divine Spirit— the Christian virtues are the fruits of the
Spirit, and those hi whom these qualities, unattainable from
the standing-point of the law, are formed, are thereby exalted
above what can only be as a dead letter opposing the in
dwelling principle of corruption. But it by no means con
tradicts this relation of the law to the life of the believer,
that Paul sometimes brings forward moral precepts as
quotations from the vopoc, for he considers the Mosaic
vofjioc as an expression of the eternal law of God in a
particular, temporary form, adapted to a particular, out
ward theocracy, in which the civil arrangements were sub
ordinated to the religious, and hence both were intermixed.
The substance of the eternal law of God lay at the basis of
the vopoQj though for a special purpose it was presented in the
form of a theocratic national law, which checked its free and
complete development. The obligatory force of the commands
borrowed from the vo/xoc by Paul, therefore, does not consist
in their belonging to that >'djuoe, but that they formed a part
of the eternal law, from which they were transferred to the
peculiar form presented in the Old Testament ; that portion
of the eternal law to which the moral consciousness of men
bears witness, is divested of its national garb3 by the spirit of
the gospel, and developed with greater clearness by the illu
mination of the Holy Spirit. And when in Horn. xiii. 8, he
appeals to the one command of love belonging to the law, he
marks exactly the difference of the Christian standing-point
from the legal ; for if the spirit of love animates believers, and
with love is given the fulfilment of the whole law, it follows
that the law is no longer for them a compulsory, death-
1 The 5iKaio<rvvTj 0eoO, opposed to the SiKaioffwrj avdpwiriiti), t'5<a, e£
(pyuv, e'£ tpyuv v6/j.ov — xuPl* vSp-ov ; Horn. iii. 21.
2 The tfrya v6/j.ov, which are not tpya o.ya6d.
3 To this release of the spirit confined in this garb, to the inward as
contrasted with the outward theocratic law, we must refer the anti
thetical expressions in the Sermon on the Mount, which certainly are
described not merely against the Pharisaic expositions, but also against
the letter of the law in its theocratic national ibrin. See Leben Jesu,
130,138.
464 HOW FAB CHRISTIANITY IS A NOMO2.
producing letter ; and here is exemplified the truth of Christ's
assertion that he came not to destroy but to fulfil the law.
Though the idea of the vupog in that narrower sense, forms
the distinctive mark between Judaism and the gospel,
still there is no inconsistency in applying the term1 in
a wider sense, to denote the common relation in which
both religions stand to the life of man. Both religions aim
at a control over the life, and give a peculiar character to it.
Legal Judaism aims at producing this by literal commands
from without; Christianity aims at forming it from within
through faith, and the Spirit that proceeds from it. In the
former case, the law is outward ; in the latter, it is inward,
one which is the germ of a new life ; for every living being-
develops itself according to a peculiar law.2 In reference to
these various uses of the term vo'^uoe, Paul endeavours to
guard against the misconception that because Christians no
longer live under the law, they are in a lawless state ; 1 Cor.
ix. 21. They have still a law, the law of God, the law of
Christ, not merely outward, but inward, entering into the
very essence of the Christian life; and this distinction is
marked by the phrases living under the law, and in the law.
Hence also Christianity contrasted with Judaism is called a
law, and we find various modifications of the term so applied,
such as j'o/uoe Tr/ortwc, vop.og £w?/c, vopog TrvevpctTOQ.
The different relations of the two theocratic standing-points,
are clearly connected with the different applications of the
idea of law ; the outward conception of the idea of the king
dom of God with the outward conception of the idea of law,
•and with the inward conception of that, the idea of the
theocracy, as not outwardly constituted, but developing
itself from within; and thus throughout we meet with the
contrast of the inward and the outward. On the legal
Jewish standing-point, there was an outward submission to
1 I 'cannot agree with those expositors who think that, when Paul
•describes Christianity as a VO/J-QS, the general idea of law must, be alto
gether given up.
2 By Christianity or Eegeneration, goodness again becomes a part of
human nature, and thus the moral law becomes a higher law of nature
harmonizing with the freedom of the will. We may here apply what
Scbleiermacher says in his academical essay, 1825, on the difference be
tween the law of nature and the moral law, without adopting the views
of the author respecting the relation of the law to the deviations from
it, and especially the relation of the law to moral freedom.
THE STATES OF BONDAGE AND ADOPTION. 465
the will of God, the outward observance of the divine com
mands, without the opposition between the human and divine
commands being taken away; the SovXevetv OEM lr TraXator^rt
•ypafipaToc, in the old state of a nature estranged from God,
of which nothing can be altered by the literal, outward com
mand. On the standing-point of faith, the SovXeia is inward,
so that in the new state, by virtue of the inward renovation
which proceeds from the influence of the Divine Spirit, the
sanctified will determines itself in dependence on God, it is a
servant of God (the ^ovXeveiv ev Kanorrj-t Trvev/naro^. Hence
SovXeia in the latter sense, is voluntary and one with true
freedom ; 1 Cor. vii. 22. AovXa'a in the first sense, forms a
contrast to the freedom of the children of God; on the
contrary, SovXeta in the second sense, cannot exist without
vioOeffia, and is at once a consequence and a mark of it, for
what distinguishes the children from the servants of the
family, is this, that they do not obey their father's will, as
foreign to themselves, but make it their own; dependence
on him is, as it were, the natural element of their life.
That merely outward servitude of which the internal opposite
to this consists, proceeds from the spirit of fear, the special
characteristic of servitude ; this inward service proceeds from
the consciousness of communion with God obtained through
Christ the Son of God, and of participation of his Spirit, the
spirit of childlike relation to God, the spirit of adoption and
of love; Rom. viii. 15; Gal. iv. 6.
So likewise the worship of God on the legal standing-point,1
was an outward worship (ffapmi?, Kara trapm, by means of
epya ffopittKa) consisting in a number of outward acts,2 con-
1 This is true of the legal moral, as well as of the legal ritual cultus.
2 Connected with the 3e5ouAc«5<r0cu VKO TO, (rroix^a TOV Korr^ov. We
wish to offer a few remarks in vindication and confirmation of the in
terpretation of this expression given above, and against the common
one of o-TotxtTo, as " the first principles of religious knowledge among
men." If the word OTTOIX^O meant first principles, we should naturally
expect to find in the genitive connected with it, the designation of the
object to which these first principles relate, as in Hebrews v. 12, ri:
(TToixf la TTJS apxys TWV \oyiwv TOV Qeov. But in the Pauline passage,
such a genitive of the object is altogether wanting, and we find instead
only a genitive of the subject. The omission of the express mention of
the leading idea can hardly be admitted. Paul, in Gal. iv. 8, plainly
addressing those who had formerly been heathens, supposes that, before
their conversion, they had been "in bondage to these elements of the
world, if we do not have recourse to an arbitrary interpretation oi'TraA^.
VOL. I. n H
466 SPIRITUAL WORSHIP.
fined to certain times and places. Worship on the standing-
point of faith, on the contrary, is ^rev/jam-i), since it proceeds
from the inworking of the delov Trvevjjia, and is an act of the
spiritual nature of man, Philip, iii. 3 ; hence it does not
relate to certain isolated acts, but embraces the whole life;
Rom. xii. 1. On the former standing-point, men placed
their confidence and pride in something human and earthly,
whatever it might be, whether descent from the theocratic
nation, or the righteousness of the law, or ascetic self-denial
and mortification of the flesh, the Kara aapKa KavyfiatiaL, tv
<rapK\ ireTroiQlvai.1 But on the standing-point of viorig, after
acknowledging the nullity of all such distinctions, of all
human works of righteousness, men place their confidence
and glory only in the redemption obtained through Christ ;
they feel that they possess only what they all receive as
believers on equal terms from him, and in communion with
him; the \v Kvply Kzv%avOai. Here all imaginary distinc-
According to the common interpretation, we must suppose that Paul, by
the first elements of religious knowledge, intended to mark a universal
idea, in a certain degree applicable both to Heathenism and Judaism.
But how could this agree with the views of Paul, who recognised
Judaism, as subordinate and preparative it is true, but yet a standing-
point in religion founded on divine revelation, and who, on the other
hand, saw in heathenism as such, that is, in idolatry, of which he here
speaks, not a subordinate standing-point of religion, but something en
tirely foreign to the nature of religion, a suppression through sin of the
original knowledge of God] Neither does the predicate dcrOevrj appear
•suitable to the idea of the first principles of religion. On the contrary,
according to the interpretation 1 have proposed, all is consistent. The
confinement of religion to sensible forms, and therefore its enthralment
in the elements of the world, is common to Judaism and Heathenism.
All idolatry may be considered as a bondage and submission to the ele
ments of sense, and a kind of idolatry may be attributed to the Jews
and Judaizers, who sought for the Divine for justification and sanctifica-
tion in external rites. This will make it evident how Paul could say to
the Galatian Christiana, once heathens, who were infected with this
Judaism (Gal. iv. 8), " How can ye, who by the divine mercy have been
led to the knowledge of God and communion with him, turn back again
to the weak and beggarly elements (a suitable description of them, in
reference to persons who sought to find in them what the power of God
alone could bestow), to which ye desire to bring yourselves again in
bondage? I fear that I have indeed laboured in vain to turn you from
idolatry to the worship of the living God."
1 According to Paul's views, this will apply to the overvaluation of
what is human in every form and relation ; as, for instance, the Grecian
culture and philosophy; see the First Epistle to the Corinthians.
TKEDOMINANCE OF THE DNEYMA. 4G7
tions, all differences vanish, which before separated men
from one another and checked their fellowship in the highest
relation of life; everything human is henceforth subordinated
to the one spirit of Christ, the common principle of life;
Gal. iii. 28. The only universal and constantly available
principle of Christian worship which embraces the whole life,
i$ faith in Christ working by love ; Gal. v. C.
The principle of the whole transformation of the life which
proceeds from the Spirit of Christ is implanted at once in
believing, by one act of the mind. Man by means of faith
is dead to the former standing-point of a sinful life, and rises
to a new life of communion with Christ. The old man is
slain once for all ; lioin. vi. 4 — C ; Coloss. iii. 3. Paul
assumes that in Christians, the act by virtue of which they
are dead to sin, and have crucified the flesh with its affections
and lust, is already accomplished ideally in principle. Hence
he infers, how can they who are dead to sin, live any longer
therein ? Rom. vi. 2 ; Gal. v. 24. But the practice must
correspond to the principle ; the outward conformation of the
life must harmonize with the tendency given to the inward
life. Walking in the Spirit must necessarily proceed from
living in the Spirit, Gal. v. 25 ; the former must be a mani
festation of the latter. Hence Christians are always required
to renew the mortification of the flesh, to walk after the
Spirit, to let themselves be animated by the Spirit. The
transformation of the old nature in man which proceeds
from the divine principle of life received by faith, is not com
pleted in an instant, but can only be attained gradually
by conflict with sin ; for the renewed as well as the old
nature consists of two principles, the irrsvpa and the aapZ,
only with this difference, that no longer (as Paul represents
the state of the natural man in Rom. vii.) the human self
with its powerless desires after goodness opposes the principle
of sinfulness, the adpt, but instead of the human self, there is
the divine principle of life which has become the animating
one of human nature, the irrev^a Qiior, aywv, the Spirit
of Christ, Christ himself by his Spirit ; Gal. ii. 20. Hence
it is not said from this standing-point that the Spirit wishes
to do good but is hindered by the aap* from accomplishing its
wishes, so that the aap£ is the vital principle of action ; but
it is enjoined on those who have received the divine principle
4G8 PREDOMINANCE OF THE RNETMA.
of life, Gal. v. 16, " Walk in the Spirit,1 so shall ye not fulfil
the desires of the flesh ; for the Spirit and the flesh conflict
with one another, so that you must distinguish what pro
ceeds from the Spirit and what from the flesh, and you must
not fulfil what you desire according to the carnal self, but
what the Spirit within you desires."2 This marks the
contrast to the standing-point described in Rom. vii. 15.
1 I cannot agree with Ruckert, in referring the irv^na here spoken
of, not to the Spirit of God, but to the higher nature of man. Certainly
the word TTV^V/M in this whole chapter is to be understood only in one
sense, and taking everything into account, the idea of the Holy Spirit
is the only one which suits Paul's meaning; as, for example, in v. 18.
And generally in this epistle, the same idea of the Spirit is to be firmly
held. Yerse 17 contains no proof to the contrary; for Paul here assumes,.
that the irv€v/j.a has pervaded the characteristic faculties of man, that
the new principle of life has taken possession of human nature, and
given it a new and peculiar vitality. He wishes to mark the new higher
principle that is now the antagonist of the (nip! in man. Men may
with the strictest propriety be called upon to surrender themselves to
this higher principle, to allow themselves to be led by it, according to
its impulses, for Paul considered the operation of the Divine Spirit in
man, not as something magical, but constantly assumes the working
together of the divine and the human. It is perfectly true that,
according to Paul's doctrine, the higher nature in man, the capability
of knowing God, which before was confined and depressed, is set at
liberty by the Holy Spirit, and now serves as the organ for the opera
tions of the Divine Spirit in human nature, and hence, that as this
higher nature of man can now operate in its freedom as the organ of
the Divine Spirit, so the latter can now operate in man by means of
this organ, and hence the two are blended together in the Christian
life. But when Paul wishes to infuse courage and confidence for the
spiritual conflict, he directs the attention, not to what is subjectively
human, but to the almighty power of God.
2 This passage, in my opinion, cannot be understood otherwise than
in this manner, though later expositors have given a different inter
pretation. It has been supposed to mean, " So that ye cannot accom
plish what you desire according to the spirit ; ye are unable to follow
the dictates of the better will ;" — and referring these words to the state
of the regenerate, this would form a special ground of exhortation for
following the leadings of the Spirit, and withstanding the crap£, if Paul
said to them that they were prevented from following the motions
which proceeded from the Spirit by the prevalence of the aap£. But if
it is understood of the condition of the natural man, and v. 18 is con
sidered as a contrast, we do not see how Paul, who had before addressed
those whom he assumed to be Christians, could make such a sudden
transition to a different class of persons. The correspondence of the
last words of v. 17, with the last words of the foregoing sense, confirms
the opinion, that the fleATjre relates to the eTnQv/j.iav o-apitts.
CONVERSION OF NATURAL TALENTS INTO CHARISMS. 4G9
Accordingly, the divine life in the inner man must be
in continual conflict with the operations of the adpl, and
progressively converts the body hitherto under the control of
sinful habits, into an organ for itself (Rom. vi. 11 — 13), so
that the piXr) TOU <ru>juaroe become oVXa diKatoavvrjz ; all the
powers and faculties which hitherto have been in the service
of sin, being appropriated and sanctified by the divine life,
are employed as organs of grace for the service of the king
dom of God ; and here the doctrine of charisms finds its
point of connexion ; (ante, pp. 131 — 140). All the peculiar
capabilities or talents founded in the nature of each indi
vidual, are to be transformed into charisms and employed as
such. And it is the province of Christian morals to show in
what manner human nature must be pervaded in all its
powers by the higher principle of life, and appropriated as an
organ of its manifestation ; how all human relations are set at
liberty and referred to the kingdom of God; and how what
is individual belonging to the representation of the image of
God in man is not suppressed and annihilated, but is to
be transformed and elevated to a peculiar form and mani
festation of the higher principle of life. We here see the
difference between Christian principle as Paul represents
it, and a one-sided ascetic direction in morals. Paul brings
forward as one side in the process of the development of the
Christian life, the negative operation ; to mortify the principle
of sin which has hitherto reigned in the body, Rom. v. 3, to
mortify the members as far as they serve sin, Coloss. iii. 5;1
but this is only one side. The other is the positive opera
tion, the positive appropriation, that as believers are now dead
with Christ to sin, the world, and themselves, so now they
lead a new divine life, increasingly devoted to him ; the
Spirit of Christ that dwells in them constantly animates their
bodies afresh as his organ, Rom. viii. 11, so that the peXr)
consecrated to God, are employed in his service according to
the station God has indicated to each individual, as oVXa
^i»auo<7uj'/7e. As the Trvev/za uyiov is the common vital
principle of all believers, the animating Spirit of the Church
of God, so the diversity of the form in wlu'ch he operates
in and through each individual, varied by their sanctified
1 The yitf ATJ tirl rrjs yfjs, which belong to a carnal earthly course of life,
are directly opposed to the heavenly inind in v. 2.
470 JUSTIFICATION AND SANCTIFICATION.
peculiarities and characteristics, is designated by the term.
But since this appropriation and pervasion of the old na
ture is a continual conflict, and the further a man advances
in holiness the more capable he is rendered by the illumina
tion of the Holy Spirit of distinguishing what proceeds from
the Spirit and what from the flesh, and of discerning all the
disturbing influences of the latter ; hence the distinction be
tween the objective justification and subjective sanctification
is always necessary, in order that the confidence of man may
not be wavering as it must be, if he looks only to himself,
Philip, iii. 12, but may maintain its firm unchangeable ground,
by being fixed on the objective, the grace of redemption, the
love of Christ, from which no power of hell can separate the
redeemed; Rom. viii. 31, 32. In the Pauline idea of the
justification and righteousness available before God, which is
granted to man by the redeeming grace of God, and appro
priated by faith, the objective is always primary and predo
minant. At the same time something subjective is imparted
with it, something new is deposited in the inner life which
must be progressively developed; the righteousness of Christ
appropriated by faith, is transferred to the inner life of the
believer, and becomes a new principle, forming the life accord
ing to the example of Christ.1 And when this process of
development shall be completed, believers will attain the pos
session of an eternal, divine, and blessed life, inseparable from
perfect righteousness ; then the objective idea of justification
will be wholly transferred to the subjective, Rom. v. 19 — 21 ;
but till this is accomplished, in order to lay a firm foundation
for the confidence of the soul, it is always necessary, while
conceiving both ideas according to their essential and ulti
mate connexion, still to keep in mind their distinction from
one another.
Since the whole Christian disposition is produced from faith,
and thereby the whole life is determined and formed, the term
iritjTLQ has been employed to designate the whole of the Chris
tian disposition and of Christian ability.2 Thus the predicate
1 The scholastic expression, " Justitia Christ! per fidem habet esse in
ammo," perfectly corresponds to Paul's meaning.
2 Hence the measure of faith as the measure of Christian ability, and
the measure of grace bestowed on each individual, are correlative ideas -r
THE STRONG IN FAITH.
471
esignates the standing-point, where faith in
the Redeemer, confidence in the justification obtained through
him, has become to such a degree the animating principle of
the convictions, and has so pervaded the whole tone of think
ing, that a man is enabled to judge and act in all the relations
oAife according to it ; that he cannot be drawn aside, as he
otherwise would be, by any foreign element of other views
which formerly influenced him ; since otherwise it might hap
pen that his earlier religious standing-point would exercise a
kind of power over his conscience, from which he could not
altogether free himself, even when raised to the Christian
standing-point ; as in the case of one who had become a be
liever from the Jewish standing-point; such a person would
only by degrees free himself from its influences 011 his judg
ment of all the relations of life; as the new Christian prin
ciple proceeding from faith in the Redeemer gradually im
pregnated his whole mode of thinking. This power of faith
over the judgment is shown for example in this, that a man
certain of his salvation in fellowship with the Redeemer, will
no longer allow himself to be agitated by scruples in the use
of outward things, which he before indulged on the Jewish
standing-point, as if this or that thing could defile him. So
we are to understand what Paul says, Rom. xiv. 2, OQ n±v
TTtuTtvei tyayiiv irarrn, i <?. Ivvarog lam rr\ niaTti wm tyayiiv
Truvra ; he can 110 longer be misled by a mixture of scruples
arising from his earlier legal standing- point. The dadei't'iv TIJ
TriffTEi forms the opposite to this strength of faith, in which,
along with faith, another element arising from the former
standing-point controlled the convictions, and hence the in
ternal stride between the principle founded in Christian con
viction or TriVrir, and the doubts that rebelled against it;
Rom. xiv. 1. Though Paul took occasion from existing rela
tions to develop his views on this subject with a special refer
ence to the Jewish legal standing-point, yet they would apply
to the relation subsisting between any other standing-point
and the Christian, or that of the righteousness by faith. The
power of faith governing the life gives an independence and
Horn. xii. 3. Christians are only to aim at rightly applying the mea
sure of ability they have received ; to do everything according to its
proportion; Rom. xii. 6. They are not to indulge conceit, or to pass
beyond the limits of their own standing-point.
472 THE STRONG IN FAITH.
stability to the Christian character, imparts strength and free
dom to the mind. This it is that forms the basis of Christian
freedom, which consists in this, that the Christian since he
has devoted his whole life to Christ as his Redeemer, and
through him to God, since he is animated only by the con
sciousness of this dependence and acknowledges no other, —
for this reason, feels independent of all created beings, of all
earthly things ; hence, he acts in the consciousness of this in
dependence, is master of all things by the animating Spirit of
Christ, and is in bondage to no man, to no circumstances;
nothing can so operate upon him as to determine him. to a
different course from that dictated by the Spirit of Christ, for
this is the great determining principle of his life ; 1 Cor. vii.
21 • I Cor. vi. 12 ;' 1 Cor. iii. 22. While the Christian as an
organ of the Spirit of Christ who has won the government of
the world, to whom at last all things must be subject, is free
from the world and everything belonging to it, from all
power of created beings, he likewise in spirit rules over all
things. Freedom and mastery over the world here meet. This
freedom and this mastery over the world proceeding from
faith (like everything Christian), and founded in the depths
of the soul, can hence manifest themselves under all outward
restrictions, and evince their power by the fact, that these out
ward restrictions for the spirit which is exalted above them
and feels itself independent of everything, cease to be re
strictive, and are included in his free self-determination and
mastery over the world. Paul proves his Christian freedom
precisely in this manner, that for the good of others, and in
order to make everything subservient to the Spirit of Christ,
he so acted in all things as would best contribute to the ad
vancement of the kingdom of Christ, and thus freely sub
mitted to all the forms of dependence. Free from all, he
made himself the servant of all ; having the mastery over all,
he submitted to all the forms of dependence ordained by God,
and in doing so, exercised his mastery over the world ; 1 Cor.
ix. 1—19.
1 OVK eyw e£ov<nacr0?7<ntymt vir6 TWOS, I will not suffer myself to be
mastered by any outward things, but in the spirit of Christian love
I will use all things freely. Instead of availing myself of my Christian
freedom, I should make myself really a slave, in eating the flesh of
sacrifices, if I believed that I must do this in every case without a
reference to particular circumstances.
NOTHING INDIFFERENT. 473
r It is evident that nothing can be excepted from this refer
ence of the whole life to the kingdom of God, for the Christian
disposition proceeding from faith, and referring everything to
God's glory, is the great arbitrator in all the events of life.
Accordingly, there can be no empty space for things in
different of which Christian principle takes no cognisance,
nothing belonging to human nature which does not receive
a moral impress from Christian principle, agreeably to Paul's
exhortation, " Whether ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do,
do all to the glory of God," 1 Cor. x. 31. It may appear to
contradict this principle, by which the whole of life becomes
one great duty, and no room is left for an adidtyopov, that
Paul, in 1 Cor. vi. 12, x. 23, distinguishes from the province
of the lawful, that which is useful or serves for edifica
tion ; but the contradiction is only in appearance, and will
vanish 011 a closer examination of the apostle's views. It
could only contradict the principle in question, if Paul
had reckoned what did not contribute to edification as
still belonging to what was lawful on Christian grounds, or if
he had not considered what contributed to edifying as what
alone was matter of duty. But it was not so, for he declares
it to be the duty of Christians so to deny their selfish inclina
tions as would be for the best, or for the edification of
the church, 1 Cor. x. 24 ; or, which is equivalent, as would
be for the glory of God, 1 Cor. x. 31. This is the course of
action prescribed by Christian love ; but very different would
be the course that proceeded from self-love, and for that
reason sinful. The subject will be clearer, if we examine
more closely the particular case under the apostle's considera
tion. He is speaking of partaking of certain kinds of food,
more particularly of meat offered to idols. All this belongs
to the province of things permitted, and in a religious and
moral point of view indifferent, on which Christianity (unlike
Judaism) laid no restrictions. " Meat commendeth us not to
God ; for neither if we eat are we the better ; neither if we eat
not are we the worse," 1 Cor. viii. 8. " The kingdom of God
is not meat and drink, but righteousness and peace and joy
in the Holy Ghost," Rom. xiv. 17. But though all this in
itself has no moral character, and without the addition of
other marks belongs to things indifferent, yet like everything
belonging to human nature, it is not excepted from the
474 EVERYTHING A DUTY.
impression of Christian principle, for it is included in the
Pauline maxim, " Whatsoever ye do, whether ye eat or drink,
do all to the glory of God ;" and Paul himself adduces
instances in which what is in itself indifferent may be either
a matter of duty or criminal. An individual who, though
not sufficiently advanced in Christian knowledge to attain the
conviction that the eating of meat sacrificed to idols is in
itself indifferent, is yet seduced by worldly considerations to
partake of it, acts in a manner deserving of condemnation,
since he does not act according to his convictions (OVK EK
Triffrewc), Rom. xiv. 23. And whoever eats of flesh offered to
idols, following his own inclination, and taking no account of
the scruples of his weak brother, and thus seduces him to
follow his example without a firm conviction of its rectitude,
troubles his brother's conscience, and acts himself contrary
to the law of love, and sins; 1 Cor. viii. 12 ; Rom. xiv. 15.
From this exposition of the apostle's views, it appears that
since what every one has to do, under the given conditions
and relations of the individual standing-point on which the
Lord has placed him, is denned by Christian principles, no
one can accomplish more than the measure of his individual
duty. Indeed, so much will sinfulness still adhere to all his
performances, that even the most advanced Christian will
come short of the requirements of duty ; as Paul referring
to himself acknowledges, Philip, iii. 12. Yet what Paul says
in reference to his own conduct in one particular instance,
may seem to contradict what has just been remarked, 1 Cor.
ix. 14, lo, &c. The apostle was authorized in preaching the
gospel, to receive his maintenance from the Christian com
munities for whom he laboured ; but he waved his claim to-
it, and supported himself by the labour of his own hands.
He did, therefore, more than his duty demanded, since ho
made no use of what was allowable. Certainly he would not
have hesitated for a moment to apply to himself the words of
Christ in Luke xvii. 16, in reference to his conduct in this
particular instance. But he held it to be his duty, under all
circumstances, so to act as would most contribute to the
advancement of the kingdom of God ; and a regard to that
object induced him in this instance to receive no maintenance
from the church, in order that he might avoid all appearance
of self-interest. Hence he felt an inward compulsion to'
LOVE THE FRUIT OP FAITH. 475
act thus ; and if he had not thus acted he would have
violated the spirit of his calling, and have been dissatisfied
with himself; for he went so for as to say, that he would
rather die than act otherwise. The peculiar circumstances of
his ministry, and the peculiar charism bestowed upon him,
occasioned a peculiar modification of the general duty of all
preachers of the gospel. What on his peculiar standing-point
was a duty, might be contrary to duty on the standing-point
of others — those persons, for instance, to whom Providence
had committed the maintenance of a family.
The fundamental ideas of Christian morals are in general
to be deduced from the nature of faith as a practical prin
ciple. From faith spontaneously proceeds the love that refers
the whole life to God, and consecrates it to his service, for
the advancement of his kingdom; for from a knowledge of
the love of God manifested in the work of redemption, love is
kindled to him who has shown such superabounding love. In
faith as Paul conceived it, love is already contained in the
germ ; for what distinguishes faith in his view from supersti
tion, was that the latter as it arises only from the dread of
natural evil, only desires a Redeemer from such evil ; faith,
on the contrary, is developed from the feeling of unhappincss
in sin as sin, of estrangement from God, and of longing after
communion with him, which presupposes the love of God in
the heart, though checked and repressed. But when the
revelation of God's holy love in the work of redemption,
which faith receives, awakens the slumbering desire of man,
or meets it already awakened, the germ of love deposited in
the heart is set free from its confinement, that it may expand
to communion with its original source. Entering into com
munion with the Redeemer, believers are penetrated by the
love of God to them, and hence they are able rightly to
understand the extent of God's love. * From this perception
1 Rom. v. 5. By the Holy Spirit, the love of God is shed abroad in
their hearts, and makes itself felt there. The voice of God himself in
their hearts declares that they are his children ; Horn. viii. 16. Thus,
in Eph. iii. 18, there is first the wish that Christ may dwell in their
hearts by faith, whereupon it follows, that their inner life maybe deeply
rooted in the love of God — the love of God towards the redeemed is the
element in which their whole inward life and consciousness rests — and
having been first penetrated by the feeling of love, they can then rightly
understand its extent.
476 RELATION OF THE CHRISTIAN LIFE
of God's love, the childlike love of believers is continually
inflamed towards him, and this love operates incessantly for
the renovation of the whole life after the image of Christ, and
for the advancement of the kingdom of God; it forms the
life according to the heavenly model presented to it by faith.
The whole Christian life appears as a work of faith, and thus
all individual good works 1 appear as necessary immediate
expressions of faith, its fruits, the signs of the new creation
effected by it.2 And as all the actions of the believer may be
traced back to the " work of faith" so likewise to the " labour
of love." 3 Now faith and love have a relation on one side to
something which is apprehended as present in the inward
life : faith in communion with the Redeemer has already
received a divine blessed life ; believers are already incorporated
with the kingdom of God, and have obtained the right of
citizenship in it, and by partaking of the Holy Spirit operating
in them by faith, they anticipate the divine power and blessed
ness of this kingdom ; they have the foretaste of eternal life ; *
they already possess the germs and first-fruits of the New
Creation, in which everything proceeds from a divine living-
principle with which nothing heterogeneous is allowed to
mingle — when it attains its completion after the resurrection.
But it follows from this, that the Christian life cannot be
conceived of without a reference to the future ; as in the
divine life the Future becomes in a certain sense a Present, so
the Present exists only in reference to the Future,3 for it
1 The e/37« dyadd are to be distinguished from the epya vo/j.ov.
2 The (Turripia not <f£ epywv, as if men could gain salvation by works
performed before conversion; for the announcement of the salvation
obtained for men by redemption, belongs as a gift of unmerited grace to
those who are destitute of the divine life, and thus of the true inclina
tion to goodness, whether they are still sunk in gross sensuality, or are
-raised to an outward legal morality ; and the epya dyadd which really
•deserve the name, presuppose that divine life which proceeds from
faith ; indeed the new creation must manifest itself by corresponding
.good works; is designed to produce such. Hence the contrast, that
believers are not <rtaway.4voi e£ epyuv, but KTio-fleWes eTrl epyois dyaQois,
Eph. ii. 9, 10.
3 1 Thess. i. 3. TO tpyov rrjs iriffreus, 6 KOTTOS TVS dydirrjs.
4 The Holy Spirit as the dppafr&v in relation to the whole assemblage
of heavenly blessings, 2 Cor. i. 22, the earnest given as a pledge of the
payment of the whole sum.
5 This must be carefully considered, in order rightly to understand
the relation of the present to the future in a Christian sense, and to
TO THE FUTURE. 477
contains an anticipation, the germ and preparation of that
which will attain to perfect development and completion only
in the Future. With the present earthly system a higher
order of things is connected, which cannot be fully developed
in believers, and whose nature is not yet wholly manifest, but
in many respects veiled from their view. The development
of the divine life, which they have received through faith, is
now only giving signs of its existence, and feebly beginning
to expand. The consciousness of this divine life is accompa
nied with a consciousness of the obstacles by which that life is
fettered, till human nature is thoroughly pervaded by it and
purified from all that is alien ; while this consciousness at the
same time produces a longing after that perfect freedom which
is the destiny of the children of God. Though it is always
presupposed that believers have already attained the dignity
and privileges of the children of God, still their rights relate-
to something future, for all that is involved in the idea of
adoption, all that belongs to the dignity, glory, and blessed
ness of the children of God, is very far from being realized on
earth. For this reason, it is said in Romans viii. 23, that
Christians who have received the first-fruits of the Spirit,
groan after the perfect manifestation of the dignity of the
children of God,1 after their redemption from all that checks
avoid the delusion of the pantheistic deification of self, which imposes
on the language of Paul and John a sense quite foreign to the truth.
1 The uio0e<7/a, though, in Gal. iv. 5, this is attributed to believing as
something present. If we compare this passage in the Epistle to the
Galatians with that quoted from the Ilomans, we shall discover a three
fold gradation in the idea of adoption. Paul first considers it as the
predicate applied to the theocratic nation in the Old Testament, to
whom promises were given of an inheritance (the K\ripovofita) in the-
kingdom of God. Those persons to whom the law and the prophets
were given, are certainly children and heirs, but they have not yet
attained to the actual self-conscious appropriation of the filial relation,
and the exercise of the rights grounded upon it. Since they are in a
state of minority, are standing under the guardianship and discipline of
the law, and their father's will is not consciously and freely become
their own, their relation to him can be no other than that of outward
dependence and servitude. By faith in the Redeemer, and communion
with him as the Son, they become freed from this dependence and servi
tude, and attain to a self-conscious, mature, and free filial relation. But
this relation in its full extent includes all that which is founded in the
idea of Christ as the Son of God, the perfect communion of his holiness,
blessedness, and glory; hence a progressive development of this re
lationship takes place, until the appearance of the children of God will
478 FAITH AND HOPE.
and depresses their inward life. This longing after the other
world is as essential a feature of the Christian life as the
partial and fragmentary anticipation of the future in the
participation of the divine life through faith. Paul uses
expressions from this standing-point which would be most
offensive to that deification of the world "and self, which
is diametrically and entirely opposed to Christianity. "We
should be more miserable than any men if we had hope in
Christ only in this life, with no higher future existence in
which our hopes might be fulfilled; for the Christian life
would be then a life full of delusive wants that would never
be satisfied, a pursuit after unreal phantoms, the offspring of
self-deceptive desires." Filled with divine assurance of his
convictions and experience, Paul would turn away with
abhorrence from views which would make all his conflicts
and efforts appear as if expended on a nonentity.
If the soul under a sense of the burden which weighs down
the higher life is absorbed in such longings not confined to
one single object, and words fail to express the deeply felt
necessities of the heart, these silent aspirations rising from
the depths of a heart yearning after true and complete
freedom, and yet resigned to the will of its heavenly Father,
constitute prayer acceptable to God, inspired by the Spirit of
God, the Spirit of adoption. The whole condition of such a
soul is prayer. The Spirit of God himself intercedes with
inexpressible and silent groans; Rom. viii. 26. Thus in
Coloss. iii. 3, it is said, that as the glory of Christ exalted to
the right hand of God is hid from the world, so also the glory
of the inner life of believers proceeding from communion with
him is still hidden with Christ in God, and its appearance
does not correspond at present to its nature. But when
Christ, the author and source of this life, shall manifest him
self in his .glory, then shall their hidden glory be manifest,
and correspond in appearance to its original; Col. iii. 4.
From the relation of the Christian life of faith and love to
a creation that is to be perfectly developed and completed
only in the future state, it follows that Faith and Love
cannot subsist without Hope.1 Faith itself becomes hope,
perfectly correspond to the idea of a child of God ; which is the third
application of this idea.
1 If we reflect how all the ideas relating to the dignity and blessed-
FAITH AND KNOWLEDGE. 479
while it apprehends salvation as something to be realized in
the future ; Rom. viii. 24.1 Faith is proved and strengthened
by conflicts and sufferings ; by the opposition which it has
to overcome, it develops the consciousness of its indwelling
divine power, and of those divine results which are not yet
apparent, but stretch into eternity ; and thus it expands into
hope for the future.2 The consciousness of the love of God
contains the pledge for the certain fulfilment of hope. The
faith that operates by love could not persist in the efforts,
which so many obstacles oppose, in conflict with the inward
and outward world, if the prospect were not granted of cer
tainly attaining its end. Hence Perseverance* in the work
and conflict of faith is the practical side of hope. "E\7rtc and
vTropoi'r) appear as associated ideas,4 and the latter term is
sometimes used instead of e\7ne.5
We must here examine more closely the relation of know
ledge in religion to these three fundamental principles of the
Christian life, as laid down in the Pauline theology. Faith
presupposes and includes knowledge, for it cannot exist with
out a reference of the disposition to something objective;
there must be an object of knowledge to operate on the dis
position. But the divine cannot be known from without in a
merely abstract logical manner, but only by what bears an
ness conferred by Christianity refer alike to something Present and
something Future, and accordingly admit of a variously manifold ap
plication, it will be easy to explain why, in Gal. v. 5, SiKaioavvii is
represented in reference to its perfect realization in the life of believers
as an object of expectation and hope ; and it belongs also to the con
trast between the Jewish-legal and the Christian standing-point, that on
the former it was supposed that SIKCUOCTVVT) might be possessed as some
thing outwardly perceptible and apparent, while the distinction between
the idea and the appearance was not thought of.
1 If eATns be here understood subjectively, eXiris would be placed
instead of TT'HTTLS as laying hold of o-urripla, ; for iritrris itself can exist in
necessary relation to the future only as e\ins. But if f\iris be under
stood objectively, then it will signify that auTTipia is here presented as
the object of hope, which may be affirmed, on account of the various
meanings attached to the former.
2 Horn. v. 4. Perseverance under sufferings produces a confirmation
{of faith), and confirmation of faith produces hope.
3 On this idea and its relation to the Christian idea of Hope, see
Schleiermacher's academical treatise iiber dieivissenschaftlicheBeJiand-
lung dcs Tugendbegriffts, 1820.
4 1 Thess. i. 3. inro/j-ot^ TTJS t\irt8os.
5 2 Thess. i. 4.
480 FAITH AND KNOWLEDGE.
affinity to it in the soul, by the sense for the divine. As long
as man is opposed to the divine in the bias of his disposi
tion, he cannot know it. Hence Paul says, 1 Cor. ii. 14, the
natural man who is estranged from the divine life, receives not
what proceeds from the Spirit of God, for it appears to him (on
account of this his subjective relation to the divine) as foolish
ness, and he is unable to know it, because it can be rightly
understood and appreciated only in a spiritual manner, that is,
by means of the vvevpa ayiov, so that a participation in this
spirit of a higher life is presupposed. Hence, also, we are not
to conceive of faith as something proceeding from unassisted
human nature, from man in his natural state ; but the manner
in which faith arises in the disposition, presupposes the en
trance of the divine into the conscience and inner life. But
as the knowledge of divine things depends upon a participa
tion of the divine life, it follows that, in proportion as the
divine life received by faith progressively develops, as the
matter of faith is vitalized by inward experience, the know
ledge of this matter enlarges in a higher degree, and hence this
wider expansion of knowledge is described as a fruit of faith.1
And since the divine life of faith is love, since faith in the
Pauline sense cannot be conceived of without love, it is
evident that the true knowledge of divine things can only
continue to be developed according to the measure of increas
ing love. Hence Paul says in 1 Cor. viii. 2, that without love
there can be only the appearance of knowledge. But as the
divine life in believers is constantly subject to disturbing and
depressing influences, and exists only in a fragmentary and
alloyed state, it follows that the knowledge arising from it will
never be otherwise than defective. This may also be inferred
from what we have remarked before respecting the relation of
faith to the higher order of things still veiled from human
sight, with which faith places us in vital communion, and to
the nature of that adoption which is at present so imperfectly
realized, owing to the opposition between the idea of it and its
actual manifestation. Hence Paul forms a contrast between
the inadequate knowledge of the matter of faith in the present
life, and its perfect immediate intuition in eternity. He illus
trates the relation of the two, by a comparison of the know-
1 Coloss. i. 9 ; Ephes. i. 18. In the last passage, knowledge is repre
sented as an effect of the illumination proceeding from faith.
KNOWLEDGE AND HOPE. 481
ledge we possess of an object by seeing it reflected in a dim
mirror, with the knowledge obtained by immediately behold
ing it; by comparing the notions of children (which contain a
certain portion of truth, though not developed with clearness
and certainty, so that there is a continuity of knowledge
earned on from the child to the man) with the ideas of mature
manhood ;* by contrasting what is fragmentary and isolated
with what is perfect ; 1 Cor. xiii. 9 — 12. Such is the know
ledge of divine things as they are shadowed forth to us in our
temporal consciousness compared with the intuition of the
things themselves. Hence, it is evident, that Paul was con
scious that he could speak of these things only in a symbolical
form, which veiled and contained a higher reality. Therefore,
from the sense of the defectiveness and limitation of our
present knowledge of God and divine things, a longing is
excited after that perfect knowledge which the mind of man
allied to its Maker and filled with a divine life, requires.
This longing naturally merges into hope.
We are now led to inquire, why Paul, when he represents
faith, hope, and love as the abiding, unchangeable foundations
1 We may here compare Plato's representation of a twofold standing,
point of knowledge at the beginning of the seventh book of his Re
public. As if a person were confined in a cavern where the light only
feebly glimmered, and he saw merely the shadows of objects by that
faint light ; and afterwards regaining his liberty, became acquainted
with the objects themselves as they appeared in broad daylight. In this
manner Plato contrasts two standing-points of the present life ; the
standing-point of the multitude, the slaves of sense, and the standing-
point of the higher intellectual life, as it is presented by Philosophy.
This higher standing-point of Philosophy might be allowed in the state
of the heathen world: but Christianity will not authorize any such
intellectual aristocraticism. This would become a beautiful image in a
Christian sense, if applied not to the contrast between the degrees of
knowledge in this life and those in the future, but to that between the
views of the world entertained by the natural man, and those which the
divine light of the gospel imparts to all who receive it. \Ve may here
compare with Paul's language, the beautiful remarks of Gregory Na-
/ian/en : 0ebi/ o, TliroT€ /xeV &rrt T))Z> <pv<riv Hal TTJV ovaiav, of/re TIS fvpey
ai/Qpcairwi' TTWTTOTC, ofrre n$]V evpy. aAA.' et /ut v efynjaei Trore, £"7jreur0co TOVTO.
fvpfifffi 8e o>s f^bs \6yos, eirtiSav TO OeoeiSes TOVTO /cat 06<W, \fjc>} 5e TOV
fl/JI.(T€pOV VOVV Tf KO.I Affyoi/, T(f OIK6/&) TrpO(Tju(|77, KO.I T] f'lKUV O.Vf\6r) TTpUS
TO ap-xervirov, ou vvv fXft TV etyfffiv, Kal TOUTO eii/at p.ol SoKf'i TO iravv
<pi\ocro(})oviJ.fvov £iri')vu(T£ff6ai TTOTe T][j.cis, offov t*yv(t}(rfj.€8ci. To 8e vvv flvaL
fipax^a TIS airoppo)) irav TO ets yfjiiis <pQdvov Kal olov /xe^aAou C^WTOS yunpov
cur airy a<TfJ.a. — Oral. 34.
VOL. I. I I
482 LOVE GREATER THAX FAITH AND HOPS.
of the Christian life in its earthly development,1 distinguishes
love as the greatest of these three. What is asserted by the
Catholics is indeed true, that love alone can give faith its true
value, since it makes it living, and hence forms the criterion
between dead and living faith.2 It is equally true, that love
forms the difference between genuine Christian and carnal
selfish hope.3 But in this connexion Paul could not, accord
ing to his own association of ideas, intend to say that love was
the greatest, for love in its true Christian meaning presupposes
faith — (love in a general sense is a different thing ; that love
which proceeds from the universal sense of God implanted in
the human mind, and from the general manifestations of the
love of God in the creation and in the heart of a man who
follows the divine guidance ;) — and faith again presupposes
love, and that which Paul distinguishes by the name of faith
stands in the closest connexion with love. What the Catholic
church understands by the term fides informis, Paul would
not esteem worthy of being called faith. He calls love the
greatest rather for this reason, that it is the only eternal
abiding form of the connexion of the human spirit with
the divine ; love alone endures beyond this earthly life ;
it will never give place to the development of a higher prin
ciple, but will expand itself in perpetuity.4
1 In reference to understanding this, it makes no difference whether
we consider the vw\ in 1 Cor. xiii. 11, as an illative particle or one of
time, for in either case, what Paul here says can relate only to the pre
sent earthly condition of the Christian life. Accoi-ding to Paul's views,
hope necessarily relates to something still future, not yet realized ; when
the realization takes place, hope ceases to exist; Rom. viii. 24. And
faith and the perfect knowledge of immediate intuition are ideas that
reciprocally exclude one another; 2 Cor. v. 7. When Billroth in his
late Commentary on this Epistle, supposes the yueVei to mean the objects
of these graces as eternal and abiding, this certainly cannot be Paul's
idea, for they are indeed unchangeable, and the same for all the three
operations of the Spirit; but these three terms refer to the subjective
relation in which man stands to divine things, and this relation under
the form of faith and hope, is suited only to the earthly standing-point,
and is itself transitory. Love only is in itself the ptvov.
2 The fides informis and the fides formata.
3 The irvev/j-aTLKi] and the <rapKiK$) as proceeding from a heathenish
and from a Jewish element.
4 Augustin beautifully remarks : " Fides quare sit necessaria, quum
jam videat] Spes nihilominus, quia jam tenet] Caritati vero non
solum nihil detrahetur, sed addetur etiam plurimum, nam et illam
singularem veramque pulchritudinem quum viderit, plus amabit, et
TRUE AND FALSE HUMILITY. 483
Thus these three fundamental principles of the Christian
life, Faith, Hope, and Love, are intimately connected with
one another; and since everything which directly or in
directly belongs to man's moral nature is brought under their
control, and receives from them a peculiar character, they
form a foundation on which to erect the whole structure of
Christian morals.
The idea of Tcnrin'ofypoavvri is inseparable from these prin
ciples. This quality is closely connected with the whole
system of the theocratic views developed in the Old Testa
ment, and marks the contrast of the Christian and Heathen
mode of contemplating human nature. The consciousness of
dependence on God as the animating principle of life in all
its relations, the innate weakness of all created beings, and
that they can be and do nothing excepting through God, was
in direct opposition to the prevailing sentiments of self-esteem
and self-confidence.1 But on the legal standing-point, this
consciousness was either only partial as far as self-righteous
ness (which implied a desire of independence in reference to
moral development and the attainment of salvation) counter
acted the perfect acknowledgment of dependence on God ; or,
where the feeling of internal disunion had been developed to
its utmost extent, and the feeling of estrangement from a
holy Omnipotence became predominant, only the negative
element of humility remained, the consciousness of personal
worthlessness as something mortifying to pride, the con
sciousness of an impassable chasm between the limited sinful
creature and the Almighty Holy Creator. But when to this
feeling is added faith in the Redeemer, and the consciousness
of having obtained redemption, the positive is blended with
the negative element, the consciousness of the participation of
the divine life and of the high, dignity of adoption bestowed
by God. If, on the contrary, the connexion between these
two points, which belong to the essence of Christian know
ledge and of the Christian disposition, be dissolved, and the
negative element be unduly brought forward, a false self-
humiliation is produced,— a self-abhorrence with a denial of
nisi ingenti amore oculum infixerit, nee ab aspiciendo uspiam declina-
verit, manere in ilia beatissima visione non poterit."— Soliloquia, \. § 14.
1 See Knapp's excellent remarks on this opposition in his Scripta,
varii Argwmenti, ed. II. p. 367.
484 TRUE AND FALSE HUMILITY.
the dignity founded on the consciousness of redemption, — a
sense of depression without that sense of exaltation which is
blended with it in the consciousness of redemption. Such a
false humility, which displays itself in outward gestures and
ceremonies, Paul combated in the false teachers of the Colos-
sian church ; but he classed this mock-humility with spiritual
pride, veiled as it was under the form of an ascetic self-de
basement.1
With the consciousness of the nothingness of all that man-
can be and effect by his own power, Paul combined the
elevating consciousness of what man is and can perform
through the Lord ; to the Kara adpKa, iv dvdpwiry KavxaaOai
he opposes the lv KVpia) Kav-)(a.cr9ai.
As humility first acquires its true character through the
love that proceeds from faith, as through love man's whole life
is pervaded by a sense of his dependence on God, and the
human will becomes an organ of the divine, so also Christian
love cannot exist without an abiding consciousness of the dif
ference between the creature and the Creator, the redeemed
and the Redeemer, and the sense of dependence whicli that
difference involves. It is the sentiment which Paul expresses
in the interrogation, " What hast thou, which thou hast not
received 1 " 1 Cor. iv. 7. In the exercise of his ministry, his
soul was pervaded by a consciousness of his weakness as a
man (ante, p. 173), which was deepened by his sufferings*
and conflicts, though accompanied by the conviction that he
could do all things through the power of the Lord ; Acts,
xx. 19. Thus that state of mind was produced which he-
describes as juera (bufiov KCU rpopov. This was far from being
1 This is a caricature of humility, which has often reappeared in the
history of the church ; and thus the nature of genuine Christian humi
lity has been frequently mistaken by those who were strangers to the
Christian standing-point, and knew not how to distinguish a morbid
from a healthy state of the spiritual life. An individual of this class,
Spinoza, justly says of that mock-humility, which alone can exist where
the natural feelings are not overpowered by the force of a divine prin
ciple of life, and at the same time transformed into something higher,
and where man has not risen from the depths of self-abasement to a
sense of his true dignity : " Hi affectus, nempe humilitas et abjectio,
rarissimi sunt. Nam natura humana, in se considerata, contra eosdem,
quantum potest, nititur, et ideo, qui maxime creduntur abjecti et hu-
miles esse, maxime plerumque ambitiosi et invidi sunt." — Ethices, pars,
iii. § 29.
TRUE AXD FALSE HUMILITY. 485
the mark of a slavish fear, but only of that state of mind
which resulted from a sense of the insufficiency of mere
human power for the discharge of his apostolic vocation.1
Tcnreirotypocrvvrj bears an immediate relation to God alone,
and according to the Pauline views can be transferred to no
other being ; men and created beings in general are not its
objects ; for humility is the sense of dependence on the
Creator as such, and places the whole assemblage of created
beings on a level. It follows, that a man who is thoroughly
imbued with this sentiment does not make any fellow-creature
the object of it, but as far as his spiritual life is concerned, is
perfectly independent of men, while sensible of his continual
dependence on God. To act differently would be to transfer
to a creature the honour due to the Creator. As it is opposed
to every slavish feeling, it inspires the soul with that true
Christian freedom which Paul so admirably develops in the
First Epistle to the Corinthians as opposed to every species of
a slavish deference to men. But though Tcnretrofppoavvrj does
not directly affect our behaviour to our fellow-men, we may
deduce from it the right line of Christian conduct towards
others. He who is rightly penetrated with the feeling of
dependence on God in reference to his whole existence and
conduct, and with the nothingness of everything human while
living only for oneself, will not pride himself in his abilities,
but feel that they are bestowed upon him by God for a
definite object, and must be used in dependence on him ; in
his intercourse with others, he will bear in mind the defects,
the limits, and imperfection of his own character and abilities,
and his dependence with that of all other men, on their
common Lord. From this TCfxtivotypoavvri will naturally arise
an aversion from every kind of self-exaltation in a man's con
duct towards others, and that which is the foundation of
moderation in the Christian character, and hence is distin
guished by no particular name in Paul's writings, but what
may be deduced from the idea of raTravo^poav^, as in Phil. ii. 3.
And it is not without reason, that kindness, meekness, and
long-suffering are mentioned in connexion with
Eph. iv. 2; Col. iii. 12.
1 Thus in Philip, ii. 12, he deduces "working out salvation with
fear and trembling," from the consciousness that all things depend on
the power of God, who works " to will and to do."
486 CHRISTIAN WISDOM.
In order to preserve the purity of the divine life in its
conflict with the KovfjoQ and the crap£, from within and from
without, to prevent unhappy mixtures of the human with the
divine, the ffwcpporrvvr)., the wfypoveiv is requisite, the self-govern
ment and conquest over the world that proceeds from love, or
Christian circumspection and sober-mindedness. The Holy
Spirit is represented as a spirit of ayaViy and of ffu^povterpoQ,
2 Tim. i. 7.1 The latter word, as its etymology imports,
signifies that quality by which the Christian life is preserved
in a healthy state, and kept free from all noxious influences.
Humility, which guards the boundary between the divine and
the human, is accompanied by the fypovtiv elg TO awfypovtli',
which acts as an antidote to the intoxication of self-esteem, and
promotes a sober valuation of one's own worth, the conscious
ness of the measure of ability, and gifts granted to each one —
the position which a man may take without arrogating too
much to himself; Rom. xii. 3. With this is connected the
eypriyopivat. /cat v?/0eir, by means of which the sensual and the
natural are prevented from interfering with the movements of
the divine life, and the mind is kept clear of all enthusiastic
tendencies. Moreover, since faith working by love ought to
govern the whole life, animate it with a new spirit, and form
it for the service of God, it will be requisite for this end, that
the reason enlightened by this spirit should acquire the capa
bility of so regulating the whole life, of so managing and
applying all the relations of social and civil life, as will be
suited to realize the design of the kingdom of God, according
to the place assigned to each individual by Providence. This
is expressed by the term aocpia, which comprehends the ideas of
wisdom and prudence,2 of which the first relates to the choice
of proper objects of pursuit, and the second to the choice of
suitable means for their attainment ; and both are blended in
1 Titus ii. 6, 12. cr&fypovzlv here means the exercise of a control over
youthful and worldly lusts.
2 To <ro<j>ia is attributed the a.Kpif3ws TrepiTrareiV, careful examination
relative to one's conduct in social life, that a man may discern on every
occasion what is agreeable to the will of the Lord, and, under difficult
circumstances, may choose the right opportunity for accomplishing
what is good, the e|ayopa£ecr0cu TOV Kaipbv, Eph. v. 15. 2opia would be
shown in the intercourse of Christians with heathens, in avoiding what
ever would give them offence, and so regulating the conduct according
to circumstances, as would be best fitted to overcome their prejudices
against Christianity, and recommend it to their regard.
THE CARDINAL VIRTUES. 487
one idea, when everything is employed as means for the all-
comprehensive object of life, the realization of the kingdom of
God,1 and when Christian wisdom is conceived of as so shaping
and controlling the life, that it may contribute as a whole and
in all its subordinate relations for the advancement of the
divine kingdom, according to the position of each individual ;
and thus what is in itself an object, becomes a means to
a higher object. Christian prudence, which emanates from
the clear undisturbed survey of the whole life by wisdom,
is to be distinguished from what is not founded on such a
basis, but would proudly assume a separate standing as
capable of regulating the conduct independently of Christian
wisdom : the prudence which subserves a selfish interest,
or employs means which a Christian mind cannot approve,
or one which places more confidence in human means
than in the power and guidance of the Divine Spirit, the
cofyla aapKiKri, which, as such, is opposed to the simplicity and
purity of the disposition produced by the Spirit of God ;
2 Cor. i. 12. Paul requires the union of a matured under
standing, and a childlike disposition, 1 Cor. xiv. 20. " In
malice be ye children, in understanding be ye men," even as
Christ enjoined his disciples to unite the wisdom of the ser
pent and the harmlessness of the dove.
Thus, in the renovation of human nature by the divine
principle of life — in the inspiring of the whole life by the
principle of believing and hoping love, we find the three fun
damental virtues, which were regarded by the ancients in the
development of morals as forming the grand outlines of
moral character; VTTO^OI ?; corresponds to dvfyeia, and includes
courage in action, the dvfylfcffQai, kpaTcuovvtiai, 1 Cor. xvi. 13,
and patience, fiaxpodvfiia, under sufferings for the kingdom of
God ; — (this latter idea, from its connexion with the Chris
tian views of total dependence on God, and of the imitation of
the sufferings of Christ, who by his sufferings conquered the
kingdom of evil, stands out in more direct contrast to the
principles of ancient heathenism ;) aotpi a corresponds to <[>p6-
rrjffig and ffuxt>poavvTi. Of the cardinal virtues only ^tKaioavvrf
is wanting, for what is generally intended by Paul under this
name, does not naturally belong to this place, since it bears no
1 From this point of view, Christ represents all Christian virtues under
the form of prudence. See LeberfJesu, 206, 239.
488 THE CARDINAL VIRTUES.
correspondence to the more confined sense of righteousness,
but, according to the Hellenist phraseology, is put for the
whole of moral perfection founded in piety. But the idea of
Sucaioavvr) is closely connected with that which essentially dis
tinguishes the moral development of the ancients from Chris
tianity, namely, the practice of considering civil life as the
highest form of human development which includes all others
in it, and the state as the condition adapted for the complete
realization of the highest good.1 As now by realizing the
idea of a kingdom of God, morality was freed from this limita
tion, was exalted and widened in its application to all man
kind, became transformed into a divine life in human form ;
and as it is the Love of God which manifests itself as the holy
and redeeming characteristic of this kingdom — it follows that,
in the divine life of this kingdom, love occupies the place of
righteousness on the standing-point of antiquity, so that, as
Aristotle and Plato traced back all the cardinal virtues to the
idea of righteousness, and according to the Grecian proverb,
righteousness included in itself all other virtues ;2 so according
to Paul, love is the fulfilling of the law, includes and originates
all other virtues, and is, in short, the sum and substance of
perfection.3 And in 1 Cor. xiii. 4, 5, he represents all the
peculiar acts of the leading Christian virtues as so many
modes of love. Love is discreet, patient, persevering, always
chooses what is becoming, is all things to all men, and thus
acts with true sagacity. The idea of righteousness is not
excluded, for all the acts of love may be conceived as deter
mined by a regard to right ; for love is not capricious but
conformable to law ; it acknowledges and respects those
human relations which are agreeable to the will of God, and
gives to every one what his position in society demands. In
Rom. xiii. 7, Coloss. iv. 1, love is represented as the animating
principle in the performance of the Ztxaiov KCU laov, which may
therefore be considered as only one mode of the operation of love.
Since Paul considered faith as the fundamental principle of
1 The opinion of those who attribute to the State such an importance,
and would constitute it a perfect model for the realization of the king
dom of God, is derived from unchristian premises, and leads to un
christian conclusions.
2 tv 8e SiKaioffvvrj o-uA\^5rjj/ Traa' aperf evi. Aristot. Eth. !N"icomach.
lib. v. c. 3.
Coloss. iii. 14.
IDEA OF THE CHURCH. 489
the Christian life, it follows, that the immediate relation of
each individual to the Redeemer was in his view of primary
importance, and the idea of fellowship, the idea of the Church,
was deducible from it. Through faith each one entered for
himself into fellowship with the Redeemer, partook of the
Holy Spirit as the new principle of life, and became a child
of God, a temple of the Holy Spirit. The knowledge of God
has been rendered attainable to all through Christ, for in him
God has been manifested in the most complete and only con
ceivable manner to the human mind, and communicated to
our race ; and as the founder of reconciliation, he has esta
blished a new filial relation of man to God. Through his
mediation the whole Christian life becomes acceptable to God.
by a reference to him who is always the sole worthy object of
the divine good pleasure, and from whom that good pleasure
is extended to all who enter into spiritual fellowship with him.
To this mediation, which forms the basis of Christianity, the
foundation of the whole Christian life through the knowledge
of the redemption received from Christ, the Pauline ex
pressions relate, " God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ " —
" doing all in the name of Christ to the glory of God " — "giving
thanks to God through Christ " — " praying to God " — " in the
name of Christ " — " through Christ " — in which connexion
these propositions can be deprived of their strict meaning
only by an utter misconception of the Pauline sentiments.
Although the high priesthood of Christ and the universal
priesthood of all believers are expressions not found in Paul's
writings, yet from what has been said, the ideas implied in
them enter largely into his religious conceptions. This
apostle is distinguished by an immediate reference of religious
knowledge and experience to Christ as the fountain-head,
from whom everything else is derived. Hence, he could
treat of the nature of Christian faith in the eleven first
chapters of the Epistle to the Romans, without introducing
the idea of the Church. But the consciousness of divine life
received from Christ, is necessarily followed by the recognition
of a communion which embraces all mankind, and passes
beyond the boundaries of earthly existence, the consciousness
of the Holy Spirit as the Spirit producing and animating this
communion — the consciousness of the unity of the divine life
shared by all believers, a unity which counterbalances all the
490 IDEA OF THE CHURCH.
other differences existing among mankind, as had been already
manifested at the first promulgation of Christianity, when
the most marked contrarieties arising either from religion,
national peculiarities, or mental culture, were reconciled, and
the persons whom they had kept at a distance from each
other became united in vital communion. To the extra
ordinary influence of Christianity in relation to these con
trarieties, Paul bears witness when he says, " For ye are all
the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of
you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ."
There was in this respect no difference whether a member of
the Church was Jew or Greek, slave or freeman, male or
female, for all were in communion with Christ as one person,
there was in all the one life of Christ, Gal. iii. 26— 28.1 The
consciousness of communion with the Eedeemer cannot exist
without the recognition of the existence of the community of
believers animated by one Spirit, who belong as his body
to him the head, under whose continued influence alone
it can grow to maturity, and in which all believers are
members one of another. This body of Christ is the
Church, the cKK\rjffi<i OEOV or Xptarrov.* This communion
is formed and developed on the same foundation as the
Christian life or the temple of God in each individual, namely
faith in Jesus as the Redeemer, 1 Cor. iii. 11. Hence the
image so frequently used by Paul of representing the church
1 In Coloss. iii. 1 1, Paul notices particularly the contrast between the
civilized and uncivili/ed, the Greek being the most striking example
of the former class, and the Scythian of the latter. His language
conveys a prophetic intimation that Christianity would reach the rudest
tribes, and impart a new divine principle of life, the mainspring of all
sound mental culture.
2 This is no abstract representation, but a truly living reality. If in
all the widely-spread Christian communities, amidst all the diversity of
human peculiarities animated by the same spirit, only the conscious
ness of this higher unity and communion were retained, as Paul desired,
this would be the most glorious appearance of the one Christian church,
in which the kingdom of God represents itself on earth ; and no out
ward constitution, no system of episcopacy, no council, still less any
organization by the State, which would substitute something foreign to-
its nature, could render the idea of a Christian church more real or
concrete, (if any are disposed to make use of scholastic terms, which, so
applied, contain the germ of error, and rather obscure than illustrate
the subject.) See, on the other hand, Rothe's work before quoted.,
pp. 290, 310.
IDEA OF THE CHURCH. 491
as a building reared on this foundation, Ephes. ii. 20; and
his application of the term olKotopiiv, to designate whatever
contributes to the furtherance of Christian life. That principle,
from which the formation of this communion proceeded,
always continues to be the bond of its union. Paul, in treat
ing of this unity, adduces as marks of its internal formation.
that one spirit which animated this one body, the one object
of heavenly blessedness to which they were called, the one
faith in one God, whom through Christ they acknowledged as
the Father of all, with whom through Christ and the Spirit
imparted by him, they were connected most intimately, so
that he rules over them with his all-guiding, all-protecting
might, pervades them all with his efficacious power, and
dwells in all by his animating Spirit — and the one Redeemer,
whom they all acknowledge as their Lord, and to whom they
were dedicated by baptism.1 The chosen people, under the
Old Testament form of the theocracy, constituted a contrast
to the heathen nations, which was now transferred with a
more spiritual and internal character to the community of
believers. They retained the predicate of ciyiui and rtytavptrot
as the holy, devoted people, in reference to the objective
consecration founded on redemption, and their objective con
trariety to the profane, the KOffpac ; but yet the subjective
consecration arising from the development of the divine
principle of life, was necessarily founded on the former, and
inseparable from it — even as justification and sanctification
are connected with one another. They retained also the
predicate K\r)rul, as those who were called by the grace of God
to a participation of the kingdom of God and eternal happi
ness; and this calling is not to be considered merely as
outward, by virtue of the external publication of the gospel,
but agreeably to its design, and as the very idea imports; the
outward is united with the inward, the outward publication of
the gospel with the efficacious inward call of the Divine
Spirit, so that hence the idea of icXqroi coincides with that of
believers who really belong in heart to Christ. In general,
Paul considers the outward and the inward, the idea and the
1 We cannot suppose that the *v Qdimffpa refers to unity in the out
ward institution of baptism, which would be here quite irrelevant. All
the marks of unity manifestly relate to the same thing, to which the-
unitv of faith also relates.
492 IDEA OF THE CHURCH.
appearance, in all these relations as intimately connected, the
confession as an expression of faith, 1 Cor. xii. 3, — the being
in Christ as a reality, the being a professed Christian as a sign
of inward communion with the Redeemer, 2 Cor. v. 17 ; and
thus also the Church as the outward exhibition of the body
of Christ, the fellowship truly established by the Spirit of
God. The language in which he addresses individual churches
is conformable to these views.
But though in general the apostle sets out from this point
of view, yet it could not escape his observation that not
all who represented themselves as outwardly members of the
•church, were really members of the body of Christ. This
distinction he does not make in the original idea of the
church, since it is not naturally deducible from it, but must
be considered as something incongruous and morbid, and not
to be known excepting by observation, unless we refer it
to the inevitable disorders in the development of the visible
church, owing to the reaction of sin. Certain experiences of
this kind forced the distinction upon him ; in 1 Cor. vi. 9, he
declares that those who professed Christianity outwardly, and
represented themselves as members of the church, but whose
conduct was at variance with the requirements of Chris
tianity, could have no part in the kingdom of God. It
followed, therefore, that they were already excluded by their
disposition from that kingdom, from that communion of the
faithful and redeemed which, strictly speaking, constitutes the
church. In this passage, he treats of cases in which the
foreign elements which had mingled with the outward mani
festation of the church, might be easily detected and ex
pelled by the judgment of the Christian community for the
preservation of its purity ; for such marks of an unchristian
course of life are here mentioned, as are notorious and
-apparent to every one. But an unchristian disposition,
a deficiency of faith working by love, might exist, without
being manifested by outward signs which would be as easily
understood as in the former case ; and here the separation of
the elements corresponding to the idea of the c*xAgff/a from
those that were incongruous, could not be so accurately made.
We learn this from Paul himself, in 2 Tim. ii. 19, 20, where
he contrasts with the apostates from Christian truth, those
who constituted the firm foundation of God's house, and who
IDEA OF THE CHURCH. 493
wore the impress of this seal, " The Lord knoweth them that
are his," and " Let every one that nameth the name of Christ
depart from iniquity." " In a great house there are not only
vessels of gold and vessels of silver, but also of wood and
of earth ; and some to honour, and some to dishonour.'"
The great house is here the visible church ; in it there
are those who are members only in appearance by an external
superficial union, without really belonging to it by their dis
position, and though reckoned by the Lord to be his, they
are " the vessels to dishonour," and are thus distinguished
from those who are united in heart to the church, " the
vessels to honour," who, in order that they may be pre
served as such, avoid all sin, and call on the name of the
Lord without hypocrisy. He here intimates that the line of
distinction between the genuine and spurious members of the
church can be drawn only by God, who knows the state
of the heart. Accordingly, in the application of the idea of
the visible church, the distinction arises between the collective
body of those in whom the appearance corresponds to what is
internal and invisible, and those who belong to the church iir
appearance, without having internally any part in it.
Since the enK\r)aia as the body of Christ not merely lays"
claim to a part of the life of its members, but must embrace
the whole as belonging to the Redeemer, and animated by the
Holy Spirit, the source of life to the church, it follows that
the care for the promotion of the good of the whole is com
mitted not merely to certain officers and persons, but all the
members are bound together as organs of that Spirit by
whom Christ as the governing head animates each individual
member, and thus connected, are to cooperate for the same
object; Eph. iv. 16. Thus, accordingly, it is the duty of
each one to consider the standing-point on which God has
placed him by his natural character, his peculiar training, and
his social relations, as that which determines the mode in which
he may most effectually labour for this end. As all natural
abilities are to be consecrated as forms of manifestation for
the divine life, so the Holy Spirit, while animating the whole,
appropriates each individual character, and gives to each one
his special gifts by which he is ordained on his own standing-
point to promote the general good. Here we have the idea
of charism, which has been already explained. Without the
Holy Spirit and the charisms as the necessary manifestations
494 BAPTISM.
and signs of his continued efficacious presence in the collective
body of believers, the church (which is the continued revelation
of the divine life in human form proceeding from the glorified
Saviour) cannot exist ; 1 Cor. xii. By the spirit of love
animating the whole, the charisms of all the individual
members, forming reciprocal complements to each other, are
conducted to the promotion of one object, the perfecting of
the body of Christ ; as Paul has so admirably represented in
1 Cor. xii.
Since the church is no other than the outward visible
representation of the inward communion of believers with the
Redeemer and one another, the institution of outward visible
rites or signs corresponds to these two elements of it, (both as
visible and invisible;) these rites, Baptism and the Supper,
are designed to represent the facts which form the basis of this
communion. Baptism denotes the confession of dependence
on Christ and the entrance into communion with him ; and
hence, the appropriation of all which Christ promises to those
who stand in such a relation to him ; it is the putting on
Christ, in whose name baptism is administered,1 an expression
which includes in it all we have said; Gal. iii. 27. As
communion with Christ and the whole Christian life has a
special reference to the appropriation of those two great events,
his redeeming sufferings and his resurrection, Paul, alluding
to the form in which baptism was then administered, and by
this illustrating the idea of baptism, explains the outward act
by a reference to these two events. (Ante, p. 161.) The
twofold relation of man to the former standing-point of life
which he had renounced, and to that new one which he had
embraced, is here signified — entering into the communion
of the death of Christ, into a believing appropriation of
the work of redemption accomplished by his death, dying
with him in spirit, to the world in which man has hitherto
lived ; mortifying self, as it heretofore existed, and by faith in
his resurrection as a pledge of resurrection to an eternal divine
life in a transformed personality, rising to a new life devoted
1 On the meaning of the formula, " to baptize in the name of any
one," see the remarks of Dr. Bindseil in the Studien und Kritiken,
1832, part ii. Paul in Gal. iii. 27, might have said, All of you who
have believed in Christ. But he said instead of this, " As many of you
as have been baptized into Christ," since he viewed baptism as the
objective sign and seal of the relation to Christ into which man entered
by faith.
BAPTISM. 495
no longer to the world but to him alone ; Rom. vi. 4. Ill
accordance with this train of thought, Paul terms baptism,
a baptism into the death of Christ. And for the same reason,
he could also call it a baptism into the resurrection of Christ.
But this latter reference presupposes the former, in which it is
naturally joined. From communion with Christ as the Son
of God, the new relation follows of sonship to God, of filial
communion with God, Gal. iii. 26; and the participation of
the spirit of a new divine life communicated by Christ, the
Holy Spirit. It is Christ who imparts the true baptism of
the Spirit, of which water-baptism is only the symbol, and
this immersion in the Spirit makes the great difference between
Christian baptism and that of John. Therefore, baptism in
the name of Christ is equally baptism in the name of the
Father and of the Holy Spirit. The single reference cannot
be thought of without the threefold. In virtue of the con
nexion of ideas before noticed, entrance into communion with
Christ is indissolubly connected with entrance into commu
nion with the body of which He is the head, the whole assem
blage of believers. " By one Spirit we are all baptized into one
body;" 1 Cor. xii. 13. As entrance into communion with
the Redeemer at baptism implies a cessation from communion
with sin — the putting on of Christ implies the putting off of
the old man — the rising with Christ implies the dying with
Christ — the transformation by the new Spirit of holiness
implies the forgiveness of sins — entrance into communion
with the body of Christ implies a departure from communion
with a sinful world ; so the distinction arises of a positive and
negative aspect of baptism. Hence the washing away of sin,
sanctifi cation and justification, are classed together at baptism ;
1 Cor. vi. II.1 What we have remarked respecting Paul's
idea of K^-X^a-m, the relation of the inward to the outward,
the ideal to the visible, will also apply to baptism. As Paul,
in speaking of the church, presupposes that the outward
church is the visible community of the redeemed ; so he
speaks of baptism on the supposition that it corresponded to
its idea, that all that was inward, whatever belonged to the
1 As Paul here joins the lv rf ovofjLan TOV wpiov and lv raj Trvevfj.an
•rov 0eoD, it may be inferred that he is here speaking of subjective sanc-
tification, by the communication of a divine principle of .life, as "well as
of objective justification.
496 THE LORD'S SUPPER.
holy rite and its complete observance, accompanied the
outward ; hence he could assert of outward baptism whatever
was involved in a believing appropriation of the divine facts
which it symbolized ; whatever was realized when baptism
fully corresponded to its original design. Thus he says, that
all those who had been baptized into Christ, had entered into
vital communion with him, Gal. iii. 27; language which was
applicable only to those in whom the inward and the outward
coalesced. Hence also he calls baptism the bath of regenera
tion and of renewal by the Holy Spirit ; Tit. iii. 5. And
hence he says, that Christ by baptism has purified the whole
church as a preparation for that perfect purity which it will
exhibit, in that consummation to which the Saviour intends
to bring his redeemed ; Eph. v. 26.
Relative to the Holy Supper, it appears from Paul's
language in 1 Cor. xi. 24, that he considered it as a feast of
commemoration on account of Christ's offering his life1 for
the salvation of men, and all the benefits accruing thereby to
mankind. According to his explanation of the words of the
institution, 1 Cor. xii. 26, believers, when they celebrate
together the Last Supper of Christ with his disciples, are
gratefully to acknowledge what they owe to the sufferings
of Christ till his second coming, till they are favoured with
the visible presence of the Saviour, and the perfect enjoyment
of all that his redeeming sufferings have gained for mankind ;
they are to consider it as a pledge of their constant com
munion with him, till that communion is consummated in
his immediate presence. Christ further designed, as Paul
intimates, to remind his disciples of the new relation or
covenant established by his sacrifice between God and manr
which is naturally connected with what has been already
mentioned; for as the work of redemption accomplished
by Christ's sufferings is the foundation of this new relation,
which supersedes the ancient legal economy, its connexion
with this ordinance is self-evident. And as in the institution
of the Supper there are several allusions to the usages
practised at the passover, a natural point of comparison is;
1 That this was the leading reference, I agree with Avhat Liicke has
stated in his essay, De duplicis in sacra Co&na Symboli A ctusque Sensu
ac Ratione, 1837. Yet other references appear to me not to be excluded,
but to be originally given with it, and to be naturally founded upon it.
THE LORD'S SUPPER. 497
here presented between the establishment of the earthly
national theocracy, which was accomplished by the release
of the Jews from earthly bondage and their formation into
an independent people, — and the establishment of an uni
versal theocracy in a spiritual form, which consisted in
releasing its members from the spiritual bondage of sin, and
their formation into an internally independent community or
church of God. If this subject is viewed in the Pauline
spirit, it will be evident, that all this can be properly fulfilled
only in vital communion with the Redeemer, apart from
which nothing in the Christian life has its proper significance;
tuid that the commemoration of Christ's redeeming sufferings
can never be adequately performed except in vital communion
with him. The solemn remembrance of Christ's sufferings is
the leading idea in this holy ordinance, though the conscious
ness of communion with him is necessarily connected with it.
And communion with Christ necessarily presupposes his re
deeming sufferings, and their personal appropriation. Baptism
also introduces believers into his communion as baptism into
the death of Christ.
With respect to the manner in which Paul conceived the
relation to exist of the outward signs to the body and blood
of Christ, we must not forget that the latter are considered
merely as being given for the salvation of mankind. Under
this view the form in which he quotes Christ's words is im
portant. He says, "This cup is the Kai^ Stadt'iKrj, which was
established by the shedding of my blood." This can only
mean : The cup represents to you in a sensible manner the
establishment of this new relation. And by analogy the first
TOVTO £ort must be interpreted "It represents my body."1
1 Those who advocate the metaphorical interpretation of the ex
pressions used in the institution of the Supper, are very unjustly
charged with doing violence to the words, by departing from the literal
meaning. If the literal interpretation of the circumstances and rela
tions under which anything is said, be contrary to the connexion and
design of the discourse, this literal interpretation is unnatural and
forced. And this is certainly the case in the interpretation of these
words of our Lord, for since Christ was still sensibly present among his
disciples when he said that this bread was his body, this wine was Ins
blood, they could understand him as speaking only symbolically, if he
added no further explanation. Moreover, they were accustomed to
similar symbolical expressions in their intercourse with him ; and this
very symbol receives its natural interpretation from another of Christ's
VOL. I. K K
498 THE LORD'S SUPPER.
Though he afterwards says that whoever eats or drinks in an
unworthy manner, that is, with a profane disposition, is not
one who is interested in or recollects the design of the holy
ordinance, so that, as Paul himself explains it in v. 29, he
does not distinguish what is intended to represent the body
of Christ from common food — that such a one sins against
the body and blood of the Lord. But from these words we
cannot determine the relation in which the bread and wine
were considered by Paul to stand to the body and blood
of Christ, for the sinning of which he speaks, as the connexion
shows, consists only in the relation of the communicant's
disposition to the holy design of the ordinance. On the
supposition that only a symbolically religious meaning wa&
attached to the Supper, this language might be used respect
ing those who partook of it merely as a common meal. And
what he afterwards says, that whoever partook of the Supper
unworthily, partook of it to his condemnation, is by no
means decisive, for this relates only to the religious state of
the individual. Whoever partook of the Lord's Supper with
a profane disposition, without being penetrated with a sense
of the holy significance of the rite, by such vain conduct
passed the sentence of his own condemnation, and exposed
himself to punishment. Accordingly, in the evils which
at that time affected the church, the apostle beheld the
marks of the divine displeasure.
In the 10th chapter of the same Epistle, the apostle speaks
of the Lord's Supper, and declares to the Corinthians that it
was unlawful to unite a participation in the heathen sacrifices
with Christian communion in the Holy Supper. He points
out that, by participating in the heathen sacrifices, they
would relapse into idolatry. These sacrifices bore the same
relation to the heathen worship as the Jewish sacrifices to the
Jewish cultus, and as the Lord's Supper to the social acts of
Christian worship. And in accordance with this fact he says,
" The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion
of the blood of Christ 1 The bread which we break, is it not
the communion of the body of Christ ?" — this can only mean
that it marks, it represents this communion, it is the means
of appropriating this communion ; for the rite is here, viewed
discourses, (see the chapter on John's doctrine ; also Ltben Jesu, p. 644,
and Liicke's Essay.)
THE KINGDOM OF GOD. 499
in its totally corresponding to the idea, in the congruity of
the inward with the outward, in the same sense as when Paul
says that as many as have been baptized into Christ have put
on Christ.1 As to the two other points with which the
Lord's Supper is here compared in its relation to Christianity,
the essential is only the communion marked by it for the
conscience • respecting the kind of communion nothing more
can be ascertained from these words.
Since the Supper represents the communion with Christ,
a reference is at the same time involved to the communion
founded upon it of believers with one another as members of
the one body of Christ. With this view Paul says, 1 Cor. x.
17, " For we being many are one loaf and one body, for we
are all partakers of that one loaf j" that is, as we all partake
of one loaf, and this loaf represents to us the body of Christ,
so it also signifies that we are all related to one another as
members of the one body of Christ.2
The idea of the church of Christ is closely connected in
the views of Paul with that of the kingdom of God. The
former is the particular idea, which may be referred to the
latter as the more general and comprehensive one. The idea
of the church is subordinate to that of the kingdom of God,
because by the latter is denoted either the whole of a series of
historical developments, or a great assemblage of co-existent
spiritual creations. The first meaning leads us to the original
form of the idea of the kingdom of God, by which the Chris
tian dispensation was introduced and to which it was annexed.
The universal kingdom of God formed from within, which is
to embrace the whole human race, or the union of all man
kind in one community animated by one common principle
of religion, was prepared and typified by the establishment
and development of a nationality, distinguished by religion
as the foundation and centre of all its social institutions, the
particular theocracy of the Jews. The kingdom of God was
not first founded by Christianity as something entirely new,
but the original kingdom of God, of which the groundwork
1 The older Fathers of the church not illogically inferred, that there
•was a bodily participation of Christ at Baptism as well as at the Supper.
2 In l^Cor. xii. 13, there may be an allusion to the Supper in the
words [«s] ei/ Trvevfj.a eTroTiVeTj^ei/, and in this case to the participation
in the ev irvivpa proceeding from spiritual communion with the Re
deemer; this may be also the case in 1 Cor. x. 34.
500 THE KINGDOM OF GOD.
already existed, was released from its limitation to a particular
people and its symbolical garb ; it was transformed from being
a sensuous and external economy to one that was spiritual
and internal ; and no longer national, it assumed a form that
was destined to embrace the whole of mankind ; and thus it
came to pass, that faith in that Redeemer, whom to prefigure
and to prepare for was the highest office of Judaism, was the
medium for all men of participating in the kingdom of God.
The apostle everywhere represents, that those who had hither
to lived excluded from all historical connexion with the deve
lopment of God's kingdom among mankind, had become, by
faith in the Redeemer, fellow-citizens of the saints, members of
God's household, built on the foundation laid by apostles and
prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone ;
Eph. ii. 19, 20. The same fact is represented by another
image in Rom. xi. 18. Christianity allied itself to the expec
tation of a restoration and glorification of the theocracy, which
was preceded by an increasing sense of its fallen state among
the Jews. Those who clung to a national and external theo
cracy, looked forward to this glorification as something ex
ternal, sensuous, and national. The Messiah, they imagined,
would exalt by a divine miraculous power, the depressed theo
cracy of the Jews to a visible glory such as it had never be
fore possessed, and establish a new, and exalted, unchangeable
order of things, in place of the transitory earthly institutions
which had hitherto existed. Thus the kingdom of the Mes
siah would appear as the perfected form of the theocracy, as
the final stage in the terrestrial development of mankind,
exceeding in glory everything which a rude fancy could de
pict under sensible images, a kingdom in which the Messiah
would reign sensibly present as God's vicegerent, and order
all circumstances according to his will. From this point of
view, therefore, the reign of the Messiah would appear as be
longing entirely to the future ; the present condition of the
world (the cuwv ovrog, or aiuv Troi'rjpuo), with all its evils and
defects, would be set in opposition to that future golden age
(the aiuv /ue'AAwi'), from which all wickedness and evil would
be banished. But in accordance with a change in the idea of
the kingdom of God, a different construction was put on this
opposition by Christianity; it was transformed from the ex
ternal to the internal, and withdrawn from the future to the
THE KINGDOM OF GOD. 501
present. By faith in the Redeemer, the kingdom of God or
of the Messiah is already founded in the hearts of men, and
thence developing itself outwards, is destined to bring under
its control all that belongs to man. And so that higher order
of things, which from the Jewish standing-point was placed
in the future, has already commenced with the divine life re
ceived by faith, and is realized in principle. In spirit and
disposition they have already quitted the world in which evil
reigns ; redemption brings with it deliverance from this world
of evil,1 and believers, who already participate in the spirit,
the laws, the powers, and the blessedness of that higher world,
constitute an opposition to the alwv ouroc, the alwv TTOVTJPOQ.
Such is the idea of the kingdom of God presented by the
apostle as realized according to the spirit on earth ; the king
dom of Christ coincides with the idea of the church existing
in the hearts of men, the invisible church,2 the totality of the
operations of Christianity on mankind ; — and the idea of the
atwv OVTOQ is that of the ungodly spirit of the present world
maintaining an incessant conflict with^Christianity.
1 Deliverance from the eVea-rcta aluv Troves, necessarily accompanies
redemption from sin. See Gal. i. 4.
2 This is the TJ &vw 'Iepot>(ra\V» the mother of believers ; Gal. iv. 26.
Rothc disputes this interpretation (see his work before quoted, p. 290),
but without reason. He is indeed so far right, that primarily something
future is designated by it, as appears from its being contrasted with
" the Jerusalem which now is ;'' but this future heavenly Jerusalem,
which at a future time is to be revealed in its glory, is already, in a
sense, present to believers, for in faith and spirit and inward life they
belong to it ; while the earthly Jerusalem is already passed away, they
are dead to it, and are separated from it. From this it follows that the
heavenly Jerusalem stands to them in the relation of a mother; the par
ticipation of the divine life by which they are regenerated, constitutes
them the invisible church. The perfect development of this life
belongs to the future ; their life is now a hidden one ; the manifestation
of it does not fully correspond to its real nature. Though the idea of
the invisible church is not expressed in this distinct form by Paul, yet
in spirit and meaning it is conveyed in the above expression, as well
as in the distinction which he makes in 2 Tim. ii. 19, 20; and when
he forms his idea of the body of Christ according to this distinction, it
entirely coincides with that of the invisible church. Hence, also, this
idea was strikingly developed by the reformation which proceeded from
the Pauline scheme of doctrine. And it is important to maintain it
firmly against ecclesiastical sectarianism, against the secularization of
the church, whether under the form of Hierarchy, of Romanism, or,
what is still worse, the subordination of religion to political objects, the
supremacy of the State in matters of religion, Byzantinism.
502 THE KINGDOM OF GOD IN ITS
But as we have already remarked in reference to the
Christian life generally, as founded on the necessary con
nexion of the ideas of TTICTTIQ and eXTric, the Pauline concep
tion of the kingdom of God necessarily contains a reference
to the future ; for as the Christian life of the individual is
developed progressively by inward and outward conflicts,
while aiming at that perfection which is never attained in
this earthly existence, the same thing is also true of the
manifestation of the kingdom of God on earth, which com
prehends the totality of the Christian life diffused through
the human race. The knowledge of the manifestation of the
kingdom of God is necessarily accompanied by a recognition
of this manifestation as still very obscure and imperfect, and
by no means corresponding to its idea and real nature.
Hence the idea of the kingdom of God in its realization, can
only be understood if we view it as now presenting the
tendency and germ of what will receive its accomplishment
in future, and this accomplishment Paul represents not as
something which will spontaneously arise from the natural
development of the church, but as produced, like the found
ing of the kingdom of Christ, by an immediate intervention
of Christ. Hence various applications of this term have been
made. Sometimes it denotes the present form assumed by
the kingdom of God among mankind, the internal kingdom,
which is established in the heart by the gospel ; sometimes
the future consummation, the perfected form of the victorious
and all-transforming kingdom of God ; at other times, the
present in its union with the future and in reference to
it. The conception of the idea of the kingdom of God in
the first sense, is found in 1 Cor. iv. 20. The kingdom of
God does not consist, the participation of it is not shown, in
what we eat or drink, but in the power of the life ; not
in ostentatious discourse, as in the Corinthian church, but in
the power of the disposition ; Rom. xiv. 7. The kingdom of
God is not meats and drinks — its blessings are not external
and sensible, but internal, by possessing which we prove our
participation of it, such as justification, peace in the inner
man, and a sense of the blessedness of the divine life.1 The
* The connexion of this passage, Romans xiv. 16, appears to me to be
this : Give no occasion for the good which you possess as citizens of the
kingdom of God (more particularly kin the present instance, Christian
RELATION TO THE UNIVERSE.
503
reference to the future is introduced, where he speaks of the
ffvupatnXtveiv of believers with Christ ; and where he says,
that those who, although they have received outward baptism
and made an outward profession of Christianity, yet contra
dict it by the course of their lives, shall not inherit the king
dom of God ; 1 Cor. vi. 10. The passage in 1 Thess. ii. 12,
where Christians are called upon to conduct themselves in
a manner worthy of that God who had called them to his
kingdom and glory, has certainly a reference to the future,
as far as the Z6£a of this kingdom has not yet appeared ; in
2 Thess. i. 5, the apostle says that Christians, as they already
belong to this kingdom, fight and suffer on its behalf, and
therefore will enjoy a share in its consummation.
But it is not merely in reference to the series of events
which are advancing to their completion that the external
form of the kingdom of God is presented as part of a great
whole ; there is another consideration which is naturally
connected with this view. As the church is a seminary for
the heavenly community in which its members are training
for their perfect development, it appears even here below as a
part of a divine kingdom not confined to the human race,
but comprehending also a higher spiritual world, where that
.archetype to the realization of which mankind are now tend
ing, is already realized. The knowledge of God, according to
the comprehensive views of Christianity, is represented not
merely as the common vitalizing principle of the human
race, but as a bond by which mankind are united with all the
orders of beings in a higher spiritual world, in one divine
community, according to that universal idea of the kingdom
of God which is presented in the Lord's Prayer. Thus Paul
represents " God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, not
merely as the common Father of mankind, but also as Him
after whom the whole community in heaven and on earth are
named ;" Eph. iii. lo. By sin men were estranged, not only
freedom) to be spoken ill of by others ; for it is not of such a kind that
you need be afraid of losing it ; even if you do not avail yourselves ot
vour Christian freedom, if you neither eat nor drink what you are
justified in partaking of as Christians, as free citi/ens of the kingdom
of God. Your good is one that is situated within you, not dependent
on these outward things ; for the goods of God's kingdom are not out
ward, or objects of sense, they are within you; they consist in what is
godlike, as the apostle proceeds to specify.
504 IDEA OF THE LOGOS.
from God, but from that higher spiritual world in which the
kingdom of God is already realized. As Christ, when he
reconciled men to God, united them to one another in a
divine community, broke down the wall of partition (Eph.
ii. 14) which separated them, and joined Jews and Gentiles in
one body, which is animated by himself as their head ; so
also while men are brought back to communion with God,
they are connected with all those who have already attained
that degree of perfection in the kingdom of God to which the
church on earth is aspiring. In this respect Paul says, that
Christ, in making peace, has united all things in heaven and
on earth in one divine kingdom; Coloss. i. 20.1
Accordingly, Christ is considered by the apostle as in a,
twofold sense the head of the church of God. He distinguishes
the divine and the human in the Saviour, and, according to
this twofold reference, exhibits him in a twofold though vitally
connected relation to the creation and to the universal church
of God. Paul and John, for the purpose of designating the
indwelling divinity of the Kedeemer, employed the idea
already formed among the Jewish theologians of a mediating:
divine principle of revelation, through which the whole
creation is connected with the hidden inconceivable essence
of God. A primeval self-revelation of the hidden God, ante
cedent to all created life, the Word by which that hidden
essence reveals itself, (as man reveals the secrets of his mind
by speech,} as hypostasized in a spirit in which the essence of
Deity is represented in the most perfect manner ; this con
stitutes a universal revelation of the divine essence in dis
tinction from the partial, individualized revelations of God in
the variety of created beings. This is a designation of the
idea of a self-revelation of God, (corresponding to the oriental
cast of mind, which is more addicted to symbols and images
than to purely intellectual notions,) which the whole creation
presupposes, in which it has its root, and without which no.
sentiment respecting God could arise in the human soul. We
are by no means justified in deducing this idea from Alexan
drian Platonism, though a certain mode of expressing it may
be traced to that source.2 On the contrary, this idea, which
1 The passage in Coloss. i. 20, has some peculiar difficulties. See
below.
2 In Philo himself, those descriptions of the idea of the Logos, in,
IDEA OF THE LOGOS. 50S
found a point of junction in the theophanies of the Old
Testament, and in the theory of revelation lying at their base,
formed a natural transition from the legal Judaism, which
placed an infinite chasm between God and man, to the gospel
by which this chasm was taken away, since it revealed God
communicating himself to mankind, and establishing a vital
communion between himself and them. The ideas of a divine-
utterance, which prescribed its mode of being to the creation
— of a word by which God operates and reveals himself in the
world — of an angel representing God and speaking in his
name — of a divine wisdom presupposed through the universe-
— were so many connecting links for a contemplation which
ascended from a revelation of God in the world, to his most
absolute self-revelation. And it was a result of this mode of
contemplation, that the appearance of Him who was to effect
the realization of the idea of the theocracy and was its end,
to whom all its preceding development had pointed as the
most perfect self-revelation and communication of God in
human nature, was acknowledged as the human appearance of
the Word, from whom the whole creation and all the early
revelations of God, the whole development of the theocracy,
proceeded. When the idea of the Messiah was freed from its-
popular theocratic garb, it would assume that higher element
of the idea of a communication of the Divine Being in the
form of human nature.
Certainly it could be nothing merely accidental which
induced men so differently constituted and trained as Paul and
John, to connect such an idea with the doctrine of the person,
of Christ, but the result of a higher necessity, which is founded
in the nature of Christianity, in the power of the impression
which the life of Christ had made on the minds of men, in
the reciprocal relation between the appearance of Christ and
the archetype, that presents itself as an inward revelation of
God in the depths of the higher self-consciousness. And all
this has found its point of connexion and its verification in
the manner in which Christ, the unerring witness, expressed
his consciousness of the indwelling of the divine essence in*
which the Platonic element which forma their basis may be easily per
ceived, are to be distinguished from those which were manifestly deduced
from a different tradition, and afterwards clothed in a Platonic dress.
506 THE DOCTRINE OF THE SON OF GOD
him.1 Had this doctrine, when it was first promulgated by
Paul, been altogether new and peculiar to himself, it must
have excited much opposition, as contradicting the common
monotheistic belief of the Jews, even among the apostles, to
whom from their previous habits, such a speculative or theoso-
phic element must have remained unknown, unless it had found
a point of connexion in the lessons received from Christ and
in their Christian knowledge. What opposition had Paul to
encounter — though Peter had already prepared his way — when
he asserted the validity of the gospel apart from the observance
of the ceremonial law! But this doctrine of Christ was
equally opposed to common Judaism,2 which, when it after
wards appeared in a Christian form, directed its opposition
against Christianity (which appeared as a new independent-
creation affecting both doctrine and practice) principally on
this point. Certainly this Judaism can appear to no impartial
observer of historical development, as a reaction of the original
1 Though in the three first evangelists, owing to their peculiar
character, in which the purely human predominates, such expressions of
Christ are less frequent, yet even here we find some which declare or
imply the idea of a Son of God in the sense of Paul and John ; Matt.
xi. 27; xxii. 44; xxviii. 18, 20. See the excellent remarks of Baum-
garten Crusius, in his Outlines of Biblical Theology, p. 378. The whole
character of the Christ of the first Gospels, and several single ex
pressions of divine confidence, correspond only to the Son of God as he
is represented by Paul and John. And the predicates 6 vios rov wQpwTrov
(the Messiah appearing as man, who realized the archetype of humanity,
human nature exalted to the highest dignity), and the v'ibs TOU Qeou
(which, as used by Christ, denoted something different from the common
Jewish idea of the Messiah), applied by Christ to himself, have a re
ciprocal relation to one another, and imply the distinction as well as the
conjunction and unity of the divine and human in him ; see Leben
Jesu, p. 143.
2 Paul himself, in opposition to the common Jewish idea of a
Messiah belonging, as a descendant of David, peculiarly to the Jewish
nation, who would never break through the forms of their theocracy,
in Rom. i. 3, 4, describes Jesus as the Son of God, who, by natural
descent, belonged to the posterity of David, but evinced himself to be
the Son of God in a powerful manner by his resurrection through the
Holy Spirit ; that is, after his resurrection, he divested himself of all
those peculiar, earthly, national relations, in which he appeared to
stand as a native Jew of the family of David. With respect to his in
terior nature, though before veiled under a terrestrial form, he manifested
and declared himself, through the divine life that proceeded from him,
to be the Son of God, belonging to all mankind, and exalted above all
;such earthly relations. Compare 2 Cor. v. 16.
ESSENTIAL TO CHRISTIANITY. 507
elements of the doctrine of Christ against foreign adultera
tions, but rather a reaction of the Jewish spirit against the
spirit of Christianity, which had broken through the Jewish
forms in which it was at first enveloped, and had developed
itself into the new creation designed by its divine Founder.
Thus, too, the doctrine of the Son of God, as the Son of Man
in the sense of John and Paul, was not a mere isolated
element accidentally mingled with Christianity, but it is closely
connected with the whole nature of its doctrines and morals.
God is no more a God at an infinite distance, but revealed in
man ; a divine life in human form. But this peculiar principle
of Christian morals, the idea of the pure humanity trans
formed by a divine life, obtains its true significance only in
connexion with the doctrine of the historical Christ, as the
God-man, the Redeemer of sinful humanity which from him
must first receive the divine life, and persevere in constant
unreserved dependence on him. The self-idolatry of pan
theism, which denies equally the God and the Christ of the
gospel, rests upon an entirely different basis, and is essentially
opposed to it. On the Christian standing-point, the elements
of the inward life are a consciousness of dependence on One
Being, of a state of pupillage in relation to him, a surrender
of the soul to him ; with a sense of want, in order to receive
from him what man cannot derive from himself, the key-tone
of humility ; on the anti-christian standing-point of pan
theistic self-idolatry, the consciousness of self-sufficiency arises
from the supposed union with God which it professes. Hence
we see how enormous a falsehood it is, when men make use
of Christian phrases for conveying sentiments utterly at
variance with their genuine meaning, as they have often been
of late years.
Since Paul contemplated the Redeemer equally on the side
of his divine preexistence and on that of his human ap
pearance, he united under one point of view the reference to
the universe of created beings in general, and to the new
spiritual creation in particular, which was introduced among
mankind by the gospel ; or in other words, the universal
kingdom of God, which embraces the whole spiritual world,
and that particular kingdom established in the form of a
church on earth. Paul was led to exhibit this twofold re-
508 THE KINGDOM OF GOD,
ference in its unity in his Epistle to the Colossians, for the
purpose of combating the pretensions of certain notions then
in vogue respecting spirits. He who is the image of the
hidden incomprehensible God, he in whom that God revealed
himself before all created existence, he who carries in himself
the archetypes of all existences,1 in whom all earthly and
heavenly beings, all invisible as well as visible powers, have
been created, by whom and 2 in reference to whom all things-
are created, who is before all,3 and in whom (in connexion
with whom) all beings continue to exist, — the same being,
therefore, who is the head of all, of the whole all-compre
hending kingdom of God, is also the Head of the Church
which belongs to him as his body (by virtue of his entering-
into communion corporeally with human nature) ; since he,
as the first-born from the dead, has become the first-fruits of
the new creation among mankind, that he may be the first
of every order of beings ; as he is the TTPWTOTOKOQ Trao-^
KTtfffwe, SO also the TTPWTOTOKOQ rrJQ Kai.viJ£ Kriffewg.* Ac
cording to his divine being deduced from the original of
the divine essence before the whole creation, he forms the
medium for the origination of all created existence ; as the
Risen One before all others in glorified human nature, he
forms the medium for the new spiritual creation which pro
ceeds from him among mankind. This combination of
reference to the twofold creation which finds its point of
union in Christ as the God-man Redeemer, is also made in
1 Col. i. 16, the sv avry must be distinguished from the Si'auroi/; the
former indicates that the Logos is the ideal ground of all existence; the
latter that he is the instrument of revealing the divine idea.
2 Inasmuch as the revelation and glory of God in the creation can
be effected only through him, in whom alone God reveals himself,,
through him everything refers itself to God.
3 The io-Ti denotes the divine existence, but also with a particular
reference to the eo-ri in v. 18.
4 It cannot be urged against this interpretation, that if Paul had in
tended to mark the reference to the divine and human, he would have
pointedly marked the distinction of the Kara <rap/ca and Kara Trvevna.,
for when Paul uses such marks he wishes to render the antithesis
prominent ; but here it is his main design, along with the distinction,
to mark the unity of the subject, and therefore it would have been con
trary to his intention to have marked the contrast more sharply. In
the former passage (Rom. i. 3, 4) the dialectic element predominates,,
but here the soaring of inspiration.
THE KINGDOM OF EVIL. 509
the expressions by which Paul distinguishes the nature of
Christian faith from heathenism ; 1 Cor. viii. 6 ; — one God
the Father, from whom all existence proceeds, and to whose
glory we, as redeemed, are conscious that we exist ; and one
Lord Jesus Christ (the mediator in our knowledge of God as
Christians), through whom all things were created, and
through whom, by means of the new creation, our destiny
will be realized, so that our life and conduct wrill be referred
to God, and be subservient to his glory.1
The idea of the kingdom of God has also in Paul's
writings an essential reference to a kingdom of evil. Although
evil carries with it only division and internal contradiction,
and forms no unity, and therefore we cannot speak of a king
dom of evil that is constituted for one precise object, yet
the opposition against the kingdom of God imparts a
unity to all the diversified manifestations of evil. As the
kingdom of God, according to the Pauline views, in its most
extensive sense, pisses beyond the boundaries of earthly
existence, and eml Braces the totality of the development of
the divine life in ail those beings who are destined to exhibit
a conscious revelation of their Maker, so likewise the oppo
sition against the kingdom of God is represented by the
upostle as of vast extent and diversified relations. He con
siders the prevalence of sin in mankind to stand in connexion
with the prevalence of evil in the higher spiritual world ; the
principle of sin is everywhere the same, — the selfishness
striving against the divine will in those rational beings who
were designed to subordinate their will to God's with con
sciousness and freedom. All other evil is traced by Paul
to the outbreak of this opposition in the rational creation as
1 It is connected with the Pauline mode of conception here developed,
that while he ascribes a truly divine yet derived being to Christ, he is
wont to mark Him to whom he ascribes the divine original being, God
the Father, simply as 6 6c6s. Nor is it at variance with this, that, as
he ascribes to htm a urrapx*"' e'" H°P$ll Qeou, an elvai Jcra 0e$, Phil. ii. 6,
he could also designate him in that difficult passage, Rom. ix. 5, as 6cbs,
as elevated above all, according to his divine nature. But in the
passage Titus ii. 13, I cannot but consider the Great God and the
•Saviour as two different subjects. "It is Christ our Saviour by whom,
the glory of the Great God is revealed." The expression " the Great
Cod hath given himself for us," would be altogether unpauline. Com
pare the remarks of that unprejudiced^ critic Winer, iu his Grammar,
p. 115, 3d edit. [p. 122, 4th edit.]
510 THE KINGDOM OF EVIL, AND
its primary source. As all sin among mankind is deduced
from the original sin at the beginning of the race and is con
sidered as its effect, so all evil generally is viewed in connexion
with that first evil, and as the operation of the same funda
mental tendency. This is of importance in relation to the
whole doctrine of sin. Had Paul, according to the views
ascribed to him by some, considered evil as only something
necessarily grounded in human nature, and the first man as
in this respect a type of all mankind, the idea of an evil
extraneous to mankind in a world of higher intelligences,
could have found in his mind no point of connexion. But it
constitutes the importance of this doctrine in relation to
Christian Theism, that the reality and inexplicability of sin as
an act of the will is thereby firmly established, in opposition
to all attempts at explaining it, which go to deny the very
existence of a Will, and deduce evil from a necessity which
classes moral development with the chain of causes and effects
in nature.1 Thus the apostle recognises in all the ungodliness
of men, whether it assumes a theoretical or practical form,
the power of a principle of darkness — a spirit which is active
in unbelievers.2 The aluv ouroe and the KCHT^OQ OVTOQ are the
terms used to express the totality of everything which op
poses the kingdom of God, the collective assemblage of the
ungodly, the kingdom of this spirit which is the representative
of evil in general.3
This has been recognised in the light of an ethico-religious idealism
by a Kant, whose earnest moral spirit (on this point at least) approaches
much nearer to biblical Christianity, than the modern pantheistic
idolatry of the understanding, and the logical monism of those who
fancy they can reconcile, by dint of logic, the contrarieties in human
nature which only admit of a practical settlement. See Kant's Religion
itmerhalb der Grdnzen der blossen Vernunft.
2 Eph. ii. 2. TOV irvev/Aaros TOV vvv evepyovvTos ev TO?S viols ri]s
atreiOeias.
3 Paul must naturally have regarded heathenism in itself (as a sup
pression by sin of the knowledge of God) as belonging to the kingdom
of the evil spirit. But though the opinion that the apostle adopted the
notion of the Jews, that the heathen gods were evil spirits who influenced
men to pay them religious homage, has met with several advocates in
modern times, much may be urged against it. When Paul speaks of
the origin of idolatry in the first chapter of the Epistle to the Komans,
it would have been a most natural opportunity for saying, that men
through sin were grown up to the influence of evil spirits, and were
seduced by them to transfer to them the homage that was due to the
CHRIST'S VICTORY OVER IT. 511
Jesus appeared in humanity to annihilate the empire of
sin and of Satan. All the powers of evil arrayed themseHes
living God. It would have marked more strongly the detestable quality
of idolatry, and the predominance of unnatural lusts, to which he there
refers, if he could have traced them to the influence of evil spirits, to
whom men had subjected themselves, esteeming them to be divinities.
But we find nothing of all this ; Paul speaks merely of the transference
to earthly things of the homage due to God, and he deduces all the
enormities he specifies only from the moral and intellectual course of
development among men left to themselves. In Gal. iv. 8, when he says
of those who had before been heathens, that they had served what was
no god, as if it were God, it is noways implied that they considered
other real beings or evil spirits to be gods ; but only that they had
made themselves slaves of the ff-rotx^o- rou KOO-JJ-OV, instead of serving
God alone, as became the dignity of human nature. The O-TOLX^O- rol)
KOff^ov are the objects to which they ascribed divine power. In re
ference to the Corinthian church, I cannot retract the opinion I ex
pressed above, ante, p. 243. I cannot so understand the passage in 1 Cor.
viii. 7, as if the persons indicated by Paul were Christians who could
not altogether free themselves from faith in the reality of the heathen
divinities as such ; for, according to the relation in which Christianity
at that time stood to heathenism, it is utterly inconceivable that, among
those who became Christians, such a mixture could be formed of their
earlier polytheistic views with Christian monotheism. Still, if they
could not tree themselves from belief in the reality of beings who had
formerly exercised so great an influence over their minds, those whom
they once held to be divinities must have appeared to them as evil
spirits, in consequence of the total revolution in their modes of think
ing. But if this be assumed, Paul could not at the same time hold as
correct that view which he attributes to the weak as erroneous. He de
clares, moreover, that the views of the liberal party in the Corinthian
church were correct in theory, but they proceeded on the supposition
that the heathen divinities were only imaginary beings, and that for
this reason the eating of the meat offered to them was a matter of per
fect indifference. In 1 Cor. viii. 5, he contrasts only two subjective
standing-points in religion, without speaking of the relation to the ob
jective. The passage in 1 Cor. x. 20, is the strongest in favour of the
view which we are here opposing. But we must determine the meaning
of this verse by comparing it with verse 19. If we admitted that Paul
considered the heathen divinities to be evil spirits, we must agree with
Billroth (see his commentary on this passage), that he wished to guard
against that misunderstanding to which the preceding comparison
might have given rise, as if he really acknowledged their divinities to
be actually divine. But, as we have already remarked, no member of
the Corinthian church could be supposed to entertain such an opinion,
nor can it be supposed that any one could have so misunderstood the
language of Paul, who always maintained so strongly an exclusive
monotheism. On the other hand, his words might be so understood,
as if he considered these divinities to be real beings (though evil spirits),
and hence ascribed an objective importance to what was offered to them.
•512 THE KINGDOM OF EVIL, AND
against the Holy One of God ; his death, in which was mani
fested the mighty power of the kingdom of darkness among
mankind, seemed to be their most splendid triumph, for here
the mightiest opponent of this kingdom succumbed to their
machinations. But the relation was reversed, and since the
sufferings of Christ were the completion of his work of
redemption, since Christ by his resurrection and ascension to
heaven manifested the victorious power of the redemption he
had completed, since now as the Glorified One, with the power
of a divine life that overcame all opposition, he continued
to work in and by those whom he had redeemed from the
power of sin and Satan, — it was precisely by that event which
appeared as a victory of the kingdom of darkness that its
power was destroyed. In this connexion Paul says, in Coloss.
li. 15, that Christ by his redeeming sufferings had gained
& triumph over the powers that opposed the kingdom of
God, and had put them openly to shame, just as the chiefs of
vanquished nations are led in a triumphal procession as signs
of the destruction of the hostile force, — thus the power of evil
now appeared annihilated. And a similar image in Eph. iv. 8,
represents Christ, after he had made prisoners of the powers
•opposed to him, as ascending victoriously to heaven, and dis
tributing gifts among men as the tokens of his triumph, just
.as princes are wont to celebrate their victories by the distri
bution of donatives. These gifts are the charisms. As the out
pouring of the Holy Spirit, the importation of divine life to
believers, and especially the founding of a church animated by
a divine principle of life, are proofs of the conquest over the
kingdom of evil, and of the liberation of the redeemed from
its power; so likewise the manifold operations of this divine
life in redeemed human nature, are so many marks of Christ's
victory over the kingdom of evil, since those powers belonging
to man, which formerly were employed in the service of sin,
are now become the organs of the divine life. Now, through
redemption the power of the kingdom of darkness is broken,
,and a foundation is laid for the complete victory of the king-
.And in opposition to this mistake, he now say* that he speaks only of
"what the heathens believed subjectively from their own standing-point,
•which stood in opposition to the Christian, and with which Christians
•could enter into no sort of communion, that those beings to whom they
sacrificed were 8cu/*oVjct in the Grecian sense of the term.
CHRIST'S VICTORY OVER IT. 513
dom of God and its total separation from all evil. But till
this final consummation is effected, the kingdom of Christ can
only develop itself in continued conflict with the kingdom of
evil, for the power of the latter is still shown in them who
have not been freed from it by redemption, and by them the
kingdom of God as it exists in the believer is opposed, though
all that opposes it must in the end contribute to its victory.
And even in the redeemed themselves, points of connexion
with the kingdom of evil exist, as far as their lives are not
purified from a mixture of ungodliness. Hence Christians are
called to act as soldiers for the kingdom of Christ, 2 Tim. ii. 3,
against all the power of evil, both that which meets them from
without in their efforts for the extension and promotion of the
kingdom of Christ among mankind, as well as against all from
within, which threatens to disturb the operations of the divine
life in themselves, and in so doing to retard the internal ad
vancement of Christ's kingdom, Eph. vi. 11. It is the dictate
of practical Christian morals, that as every talent is trans
formed into char ism, it becomes appropriated for this divine
equipment of the militia Christi If Christians only rightly
appropriate divine truth, and make all the powers of their
nature subservient to it, they will find therein the most com
plete equipment (the iravoirXia rov Oeov) in order to carry on this
warfare successfully. Whenever Paul mentions this invisible
kingdom of evil, it is always in connexion with the presup
posed sinful direction of the will in human nature, for the
doctrine of Satan can only be rightly understood by means of
the idea of sin derived from our moral experience. In the
copious discussion on the nature and origin of sin, and on the
reaction of the work of redemption against sin, which is given
in the Epistle to the Romans, Satan is not mentioned; and
when Paul first turned to the heathen and led them to
the faith, he certainly appealed at first only to the conscious
ness of sin in their own breasts, as in his discourse at Athens.
Moreover, he always contemplated this doctrine in connexion
with the redemption accomplished by Christ. Believers have
reason to fear the invisible powers of darkness only when they
expose themselves to their influence by the sinful direction of
their will, and are not careful to make a right iise of the
means granted them in communion with Christ, for conflict
ing with the kingdom of evil ; that kingdom which the
VOL. I. L L
514 THE DEVELOPMENT OF
Redeemer has overcome once for all. Paul employs this doc
trine to arouse believers to greater watchfulness, that, under
the consciousness of an opposing invisible power which avails
itself of every germ of evil as a point of connexion, they may
carefully watch and allow nothing of the kind to spring up ;
and that they may rightly appropriate and use the divine
weapons furnished by the gospel against all temptation;
2Cor.ii. 10, 11; Eph.vi. 12.
We have now to speak of the gradual development of the
kingdom of Christ, as it advances in conflict with the king
dom of evil, until the period of its completion.
With respect to the manner in which both nations and
individuals are led by the publication of the gospel to a par
ticipation in the kingdom of God, Paul deduces the counsel of
redemption and everything belonging to its completion, both
generally and particularly, from the free disposal of the grace
of God, irrespective of any merit on the part of man. The
peculiar form of his doctrinal scheme is closely connected
with the manner in which he was changed from being an
eager persecutor of the gospel into its zealous professor and
publisher. And this free movement of grace, not measured
and determined according to human merit, he brings forward
in opposition to a theory equally arrogant and contracted,
according to which admission to the kingdom of God was
determined by the merits of a legal righteousness ; the Jewish
people, by virtue of the merits and election of their pro
genitors, were supposed to have an unalienable right to form
the main-pillar and centre of the theocracy. Accordingly, he
contemplates the free arrangements of grace in a twofold con
trast ; in contrast to claims founded on natural descent from
distinguished ancestors, and a peculiar theocratic nation — and
to claims founded on the rneritoriousness of a legal righteous
ness. In reference to the former, he makes the contrast on
the one hand of natural descent determined by law, and there
fore founded in a law of natural development, and denned by
it ; on the other hand, a development not to be calculated
according to such a law of nature, but one which depends on
the free disposal of divine grace and of the divine Spirit ; the
arrangement according to which the promise is fulfilled as the
work of God's free grace. In the former case, the develop
ment of the kingdom of God proceeds by outward propaga-
THE KINGDOM OF GOD. 515
tion and transmission — in the latter, a development ensues in
virtue of the invisible and internal connexion of the operations
of the divine Spirit, and of the communication of divine life.
Paul illustrates this universal contrast,1 this law for the theo-
cratical development through all ages by a particular ex
ample, the example of Abraham's posterity, from whom the
Jews deduced their theocratic privileges. He points out how,
among the immediate posterity of Abraham, not that son was
chosen who would have carried on the line of his descendants
according to the common course of nature, but one who was
miraculously born 2 contrary to all human calculation ; that
this latter, and not the former, was destined to be the instru
ment of fulfilling the divine promises, and of continuing the
theocracy ; such, he shows, was the law of its continued
development. Most unjustly has Paul been charged here
with an arbitrary allegorizing which could carry weight only
with the readers of that age.
We do not here perceive in him a theologian entangled in
Jewish prejudices, of which his education in the school of
Pharisaism could not divest him, but a great master in the
interpretation of history, who in particular facts could discern
general laws and types, and knew how to reduce the most
complex phenomena to simple and constantly recurring laws.
Thus he here infers, with perfect correctness from a particular
case, a universal law for the historical development of the
theocracy, which he illustrates by that fact. He applies the
same law to the Jews considered as the peculiar theocratic
people in relation to the theocratic people formed from the
mass of mankind by the gospel. Since those who, according
to the law of natural descent from the theocratic people,
imagined that they had a sure title to admission into the
kingdom of God, were yet excluded from it ; on the contrary,
by a dispensation of the divine Spirit, which could not have
been calculated beforehand, towards the heathen nations, who
according to the order of nature, since they were entirely
1 The same contrast, which has always made its appearance among
the conflicting views in the Christian 'church, the contrast between
Judaism in a Christian form, as in Catholicism and other similar modes
of thinking, and the free evangelical point of view of the visible church
depending for its development on the invisible efficiency of the divine
word.
2 Kara Trvev/j-a, not Kara aapxa ; Gal. iv.
516 EXPOSITION OP ROMANS IX.
distinct from the theocratic people, appeared to be altogether
excluded1 from the kingdom of God, a new theocratic race
was called into existence, in whom the promises made to
Abraham were to be fulfilled.
With respect to the second point, that of founding a claim
for admission into the kingdom of God on the merits of a
legal righteousness, Paul meets this arrogant assumption by
the fact that the Jews, who by their zeal in the righteousness
of the law, appeared to have the most valid title to such a
privilege, were excluded from it owing to their unbelief ; and
on the contrary, the heathen, among whom there had been no
such striving after a legal righteousness, were unexpectedly
called to partake of it.
As in the ninth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, he
contemplates only this one aspect of the dispensation of di
vine grace in the perpetuation of the kingdom of God, and
for a polemical purpose, it might seem as if he deemed the
dispensation of divine grace to be in no respect affected by
the determination of the human will — as if happiness and
unhappiness were distributed among men by a divine predes
tination entirely unconditional; and as if he deduced the dif
ferent conduct of men in reference to the divine revelations
and leadings — from a divine causation which arranged every
thing according to an unchangeable necessity. This principle
if carried out, would lead to a denial of all moral free self-
determination in general, contradict the essence of genuine
theism, and would logically be consistent only with Pantheistic
views. But on such a supposition, the line of argument which
Paul here adopts would be entirely inconsistent with the ge
neral design of this epistle. He wishes to prove both to Gen
tiles and Jews, that, owing to their sins, they had no means of
exculpating themselves before the divine tribunal; that all
were alike exposed to punishment ; he particularly wished
to lead the Jews to a conviction that, by their unbelief, they
deserved exclusion from the kingdom of God. But on the
hypothesis to which we have just referred, he would have
1 However improbable it appeared that Abraham would obtain off
spring for the continuance of his race, in the manner which actually
occurred, there was as little probability that the true worship of
Jehovah would proceed from nations who had been hitherto devoted to
idolatry.
EXPOSITION OF ROMANS IX. 517
removed all imputation of guilt, and furnished the best ground
of excuse for all, a necessity that guided all human actions
by a secret machinery. Or we must explain his scheme by
the distinction of a twofold standing-point, one theoretical,
the other practical, a hidden and a revealed will of God ; but
we can find nothing in his mode of thinking to authorize
such a distinction. It is, in short, evident from the close of
his whole argument, which begins in the ninth chapter— even
if we do not view this single discussion in its relation to the
whole of his theology and anthropology — how very far he was
from thinking of God as a being who created the greater part
of the human race, in order to manifest his punitive justice
to them after involving them in sin and unbelief; and who
had created a smaller part in order to manifest his redeeming
grace, by rescuing them from the sin into which they had been
involved by a divine destiny ; for he represents as the final
issue of all the dispensations with the generations of mankind,
not such a partial, but the most general revelation of the
divine grace. God hath suffered all, Jews as well as Gentiles,1
to come to a knowledge of their sin, and by that of their need
of redemption, that he may manifest his redeeming grace to
all who are in this way fitted to receive it, Rom. xi. 32. More
over, the doxology with which he closes the whole exposition
of his views (xi. 33), contains a twofold reference, — to the
infinite wisdom of God, which manifests itself in the develop
ment of the kingdom of God among the Gentiles by an un
expected course of events, — and to the grace of God, to which
men are indebted for all those blessings which no merits of
their own could secure. Therefore, in the discussion which is
closed by this doxology, there is only a reference to a divine
wisdom, whose proceedings are not to be calculated before
hand, according to any contracted human theory ; and to a
superabounding grace of God, which anticipates all human
merit, reigns over all, and serves to explain all. These two
1 The great mass t>f mankind, as being either of the Jewish or
Gentile race, seems to be the subject of discourse, rather than indi
viduals ; though what Paul here says is applicable to the plan and
course of the divine dealings with individuals ; the same preparation
for the appropriation of redemption, is needed for individuals as for
collective bodies consisting of individuals; the consciousness of the
need of redemption is always the necessary intermediate step, though,
this may be awakened in various ways.
518 WISDOM OF GOD IN EEDEMPTIOX.
relations are closely connected with one another; for as the
superabounding grace of God is shown by all, Jews as well as
Gentiles, and Gentiles as well as Jews, being brought to a
participation of redemption, so the wonderful wisdom of God
is manifested by the manner in which, by the dealings of his
providence with the nations, the feeling of the need of re
demption as the necessary preparation for obtaining it, is
developed in various ways among them, according to their
respective standing-points.
Thus, too, Paul says in Eph. iii/lO, that by the manner in
which the church of God was formed among mankind, and
especially in which the heathen were led to a participation in
redemption, the TroXv-rroiKiXoc <ro0m rov 6eov was manifested ;
the epithet here given to the divine wisdom, serves to express
the variety of methods by which it conducted the develop-
ment of mankind to one end. But the praise of the divine
wisdom in this respect, is directly opposed to the hypothesis
of an arbitrary impartation of grace and of an unconditional
divine causation. For this very reason, divine wisdom was
requisite for the establishment of the church of God among
mankind, because God did not all at once give that direction
to men's minds which they required to attain a participation
in redemption, but trained them to it with free self-determi
nation on their part according to their various standing-
points.1
In the discussion of this controversy, Paul dwells prin
cipally on the free grace and independent will of God, because
it was only his object to humble the pride of the Jews, and to
awaken in their minds the consciousness that man, by all his
1 When Paul speaks of the incomprehensibility of the divine dealings
towards the generations of men, it is in this sense, that the limited
reason of man cannot determine cl priori the proceedings of the divine
government, and that man cannot understand its single acts till he can
survey the connexion of the whole in its historical development. But
since he speaks of a revelation of the divine wisdom, it is evident that
he assumes that a knowledge of these proceedings is possible in such a
connexion. And, in fact, the divine wisdom must have already mani
fested itself conspicuously in the transference of the kingdom of God
from the Jews to the Gentiles, and in the preparation of the latter for
that event, to those who only cast a glance at the events that were
passing under their eyes. The divine wisdom will also be discerned at
a future period, in the manner of bringing so large a portion of the
Jewish people to faith in the Redeemer.
PHARAOH A WARNING TO THE JEWS. 519
efforts, cannot seize what he can only receive from the grace
of God under a sense of his own dependence and need of
help ; that God was under no obligation to choose the instru
ments for perpetuating the theocracy only from the members
of the theocratic nation, but might make them the objects of
punishment. But from this we are by no means to infer that
Paul considered that this grace operated as a magical, uncon
ditional necessity, or that the divine punishment was an
arbitrary act, or, equally with sin and unbelief, a matter
of divine causation. It was far from his intention to give a
complete theory of the divine election of grace, and its rela
tion to free-will, but only to exhibit it under one special
point of view. It was therefore natural that, if this anti
thetical reference was not always kept in view, and everything
else in connexion with it, much would be misunderstood,
and a very one-sided theory of election would be formed from
this portion of Scripture. When Paul says God hardencth
whom he will — the freedom of the divine will in reference to
the divine punishment is maintained against the delusion
of the Jews, that their nation could not be an object of the
divine displeasure. But that this punishment should be
conditional, depending on the criminality of man as a free
agent, is by no means excluded, but rather implied in the
idea of hardening.
By this expression that law of the moral world is indicated,
according to which the moral self-determination gives its
direction to the whole inward man ; the sinful direction of
the will brings on blindness of mind, and the manner in which
everything from without operates on man, depends on this his
inward self-determination, and by his consequent susceptibility
or unsusceptibility for the revelation of the Divine which meets
him from without. And in this respect, Paul holds up the
example of Pharaoh as a warning to the Jewish nation.
As the miracles which, by another direction of his inward
man, might have led him to an acknowledgment of the divine
almightiness in the dealings of God with the Jewish people,
and to a subjection of his will to the divine will clearly
manifested to him — as these miracles, on the contrary, only
contributed to harden him in his self-will and delusion, so
there was nothing to prevent God from acting in a similar
way with the Jewish nation in reference to the reception they
520 THE DIVINE DECREES.
gave to the revelation of himself through Christ. When he
says, that the Jews by all their efforts could attain nothing ;
but that the Gentiles, on the contrary, without such efforts had
been admitted into the kingdom of God (Rom. ix. 30, 31);
such language by no means implies that the conduct of men
makes no difference in the impartation of grace, but exactly
the contrary; for he thus expresses the hindrance to the
reception of the gospel by the Jews arising from the direction
of their minds, from the state of their hearts ; namely, that
a confidence in their own "willing and running," prevented
the consciousness of their need of redemption, while those
classes of heathens among whom the gospel was first propa
gated were more easily led to embrace it, because they in
dulged in no such false confidence. And as he combated the
presumptuous dependence of the Jews on their own works
and exposed its nullity, so on the other hand, he warned the
Gentiles against a false dependence on divine grace, which
might mislead them to forget what was required on their
part, in order to its appropriation. He represents the opera
tions of grace as depending on their faithful retention on the
part of man — the remaining in grace on the right direction
of the will, Rom. xi. 20. " Because of unbelief they were
broken off, and thou standest by faith." In another passage,
Paul allows it to depend entirely on the direction of the will
whether a man should become a vessel of honour or of dis
honour. " If a man purge himself from these, he shall be
a vessel unto honour," 2 Tim. ii. 21. But in his own sphere
of action, the apostle was more frequently called to oppose a
false confidence in a vain righteousness of works, than a false
confidence in divine grace ; and his own mental training led
him particularly to combat the former error. Both these
circumstances together had the effect of disposing him to
develop the Christian doctrine on this side especially, and to
present what belonged to it in the clearest light.
Besides, when it was his object to arouse and establish the
courage and confidence of believers, he could not direct them
to the weak and uncertain power of man, but pointed to the
immovable ground of confidence in the counsels of the
divine love in reference to their salvation, the foundation of
what God had effected through Christ. The divine counsel of
salvation must necessarily be fulfilled in them, nor could the
THE DIVINE DECREES. 2
accomplishment of this unchangeable divine decree be pre
vented by anything which might happen to them in life ; on
the contrary, all things would serve to prepare for its accom
plishment, everything which they might meet with in life
must contribute to their salvation. This is the practical con
nexion of ideas in Rom. viii. 28, &c., those whom God in his
eternal intuition1 has recognised as belonging to him through
Christ, he has also predetermined that they should be con
formed to the archetype of his Son, since he having risen from
the dead in his glorified humanity, must be the first-born
among many brethren. But those whom he had predestined
to this end, he has also called to it ; those whom he has called,
he has also justified ; those whom he has justified, he has also
glorified. The train of thought is therefore this : first, the
divine idea of Christ, and of mankind contemplated in him,
the divine counsel to realize this idea in believers ; to conform
them as redeemed to the archetype of Christ by the comple
tion of the new creation. Then the gradual accomplishment
of this counsel ; first, the calling to believe (in the Pauline
sense, the outward and the inward call are taken in combina
tion for the production of faith), as believers they become
justified, and with believing the realization of the dignity of
the children of God begins in their inward life. That God
gave up his Son in order to secure this blessing to them, is a
sure pledge of their obtaining it, and that nothing which
appears to stand in the way shall really obstruct, but on the
contrary must serve to advance it. Consequently, this doc
trine of predestination and election, in the Pauline sense, is
nothing else but the application of the general counsel of God
for the redemption of mankind through Christ as the ground
of salvation to those in whom it is accomplished by virtue of
their believing. The greatness and certainty of the dignity
of Christians is thus evinced ; but nothing is determined
respecting the relation of the divine choice to the free deter
mination of the human wills. When Paul, in Eph. i. 4,
represents Christians as objects of the divine love before the
foundation of the world, his object is to show that Christianity
1 I do not mean a knowledge simply resulting from the divine pre
science, which is quite foreign to the connexion of the passage, but a
creative knowledge, [such as in the Arts a man of genius has of his
designs,] established in the divine idea.
522 THE FINAL CONSUMMATION.
was not inferior to Judaism as a new dispensation, but was
in fact the most ancient and original, and presupposed by
Judaism itself, the election in Christ preceded the election of
the Jewish nation in their forefathers ; and redemption, the
verification of the archetype of humanity through Christ and
proceeding from him, is the end of the whole terrestrial crea
tion, so that everything else appears as a preparation for this
highest object in the counsel of creation in reference to this
world.
Of the apostle Paul's views in reference to the last conflict
which the kingdom of God will have to sustain, and his ex
pectations of the victory to be gained by the approaching
coming of the Lord, we have already spoken in our account
of his ministry ; ante, p. 205. The prospects of the con
summation of the kingdom of God bear the same relation to
the development of the New Testament dispensation, as the
prophetic intimations of the glorification of the theocracy by
the work of the Redeemer bear to the development of the
Old Testament dispensation. Everything prophetical must
be fragmentary, and hence cannot furnish us with clear and
connected knowledge. We cannot, therefore, help considering
as a vain attempt, the endeavour to frame, by a comparison
of particular apostolical expressions, a connected complete
doctrine of the consummation of all things. From the
standing-point of the apostles this was not possible. It might
indeed happen, that in moments of higher inspiration and
of special illumination, many higher but still isolated views
might be imparted, which yet they could not combine into an
organic systematic unity with their other representations on
this subject.
With the doctrine of the consummation of the kingdom of
God, is closely connected, in the Pauline system, the doctrine
of the resurrection. This doctrine does not present itself here
as an accidental and isolated fact, but stands in intimate
relation to his general mode of contemplating the Christian
life. It is the fundamental view of Paul and of the New
Testament generally, that the Christian life which proceeds
from faith carries in it the germ of a higher futurity ; that
the development of the divine life begun by faith, through
which a man appropriates the redeeming work of Christ, and
enters into fellowship with him, will go on until it has pervaded
DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION. 523
human nature in its full extent. Thus the appropriation of
the body as an organ for the sanctified soul, as a temple of the
Holy Spirit, must precede the higher state in which the body
will be furnished as the glorified and corresponding organ of
the perfected holy soul, Rom. vi. 5 — 8, 11; 1 Cor. vi. 14.
Expositors, for want of entering sufficiently into the profound
views of the apostle, and of grasping the comprehensive
survey that stretches from the present into the future, have
often erred by a mistaken reference of such passages either
solely to the spiritual resurrection of the present state, or
solely to the bodily resurrection of the future.
The difficulties which were raised, even in the apostle's time,
respecting the doctrine of the resurrection, were founded par
ticularly on the gross conceptions of it, and on the mode of
determining the identity of the body. Paul, on the contrary,
in the fifteenth chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians,
teaches that, by the same creative power of God which caused
a peculiar creation to proceed from a grain of corn, an organ
of the soul adapted to its higher condition would be formed
from an indestructible corporeal germ. It may be asked,
what is the essence of the body considered as an organ
belonging to a distinct personality ? Only this is considered
by Paul as abiding, while the corporeal form 'is subject to
change and dissolution ; the former, as something belonging
to the representation of the whole personality, will be restored
in a form corresponding to its glorified state. And as the body
of man is the mediating organ between the soul and nature, the
idea is here associated of a Palingenesia of the latter, with the
resurrection to which Paul alludes in Rom. viii. 19 — 23.1
1 The later distinguished commentators on this epistle have acknow
ledged this to be the only tenable exposition ; and even Usteri, who
had before brought forward the strongest objections against it, has been
induced, for the same reasons which appear to me convincing, to accede
to it. Against that interpretation, according to which this passage
refers to the anxiety of the heathen world, the following reasons appear
to me decisive. 1. Paul would in that case have used, as he generally
does, the word n6ff^os. 2. If we admit that he here pointed out the
deeply felt sense of universal misery, the feeling of dissatisfaction with
all existing things, the longing after something better, though without
a clear knowledge of the object, as felt by the heathen, yet he would
attribute such feelings to only a small and better part of the tcoffpos ; it
is impossible that he could assert this of the whole mass of the heathen
world sunk in sin. Yet we must grant that, in describing an age of
5M THE INTERMEDIATE STATE.
This idea stands in close connexion with the whole of the'
Pauline scheme of doctrine, and the Christian system
generally : the K\rjpovopla TOV KOO-JUOV, which promised to
believers that they shall reign with Christ — that to them as
to Christ all things in the future world shall be subject —
that this globe is destined to be the scene of the triumphant
kingdom of God — that in its progressive development this
kingdom will subject all things to itself, until the consumma
tion which Paul marks as the aim of this universal longing.
He usually connects the doctrine of the eternal life of the
individual with the doctrine of the resurrection, and says
nothing of the life of the soul in an intermediate state after
death till the end of all things. The designation of death
as a sleep in relation to the resurrection that is to follow, may
favour the opinion that he considered the state after death to
be one of suppressed consciousness like sleep, and admitted
that the soul would first be awakened at the resurrection of
the body, though in every other reference to death he could
describe it under the image of sleep as a transition to a higher
existence. When in the church at Thessalonica the anxieties
of many were excited respecting the fate of the believers who
had already died, he only intimates to them that, at the time
of Christ's second coming, the believers then alive would not
anticipate those who were already dead. But it might be
great excitement, and pervaded by a vague and obscure anxiety, it
might be said, that an anxiety of which they were unconscious was at
the bottom of their wrestling and striving, — that they were in a state of
unhappiness, which only he who had attained a higher knowledge could
explain to them; and thus Paul might apply the expressions used by
him to describe the spiritual condition of the world around him. But
then, he must have described this state of men's minds as something
peculiar to that age, and not as having existed up to that moment from
the beginning, ever since the creation had been subject to this bondage.
3. According to his own ideas, he could not say that the Koa^os against
its will was subjected, in a manner free from blame, by God himself to
the bondage of a vain existence. 4. According to this interpretation,
Paul must have taught, that as soon as the children of God had
attained their destined glory, it would spread itself over the heathen
world, which would then enter into the communion of the divine life.
But if it be assumed that Paul here so openly and clearly expressed the
doctrine of a universal restitution, he must first have mentioned the
appropriation of redemption by faith as a means of salvation equally
necessary for all ; he could not have admitted the possibility of such a
state of glorification not brought about through faith in the Eedeemer.
THE INTERMEDIATE STATE, 525
supposed, that had he admitted a continuance of consciousness
in more exalted and intimate communion with the Lord as
taking place immediately after death, he would have reminded
the persons whose minds were disturbed on the subject, that
those for whom they mourned had already been admitted to a
higher and blessed communion with their Lord, as the later
Fathers of the Church would not have failed to have done.
Yet since Paul was convinced that by faith men pass from
death unto life1 — since he testified from his own experience
under manifold sufferings, that while the outward man
perished the inward was renewed day by day, 2 Cor. xiv. 16,
and this experience was to him a type of the future — since
also the outward man would only pass to a higher life from
the final dissolution of death — since he received a progressive
development of the divine life in communion with the Re
deemer — since he taught that believers would follow the Saviour
in all things— from all these considerations it necessarily fol
lowed, that the higher life of believers could not be inter
rupted by death, and that by means of it they would attain
to a more complete participation in Christ's divine and blessed
life. This idea of a progressive development of the divine
life in communion with the Redeemer, is indeed not one
introduced from a foreign standing-point, into the doctrine of
the apostles, but proceeds from his own mode of contempla
tion, as we learn from a comparison of his language in
numberless passages. Still we are not sufficiently justified to
conclude from that idea of such a process of development in
the earthly life, that Paul believed in its progression after the
close of our earthly life, in the period intervening till the
resurrection. We may imagine the possibility that the
consequences flowing from those premises would not be
1 For although he has not expressed this in precisely the same terms
as John, yet the sentiment they contain follows of course from what he
has repeatedly asserted respecting deliverance from spiritual death, and
the life produced by faith. Between the two apostles there is only a
difference of form, not of the manner in which the idea of fa)] is em
ployed by them,— for in this they agree, in considering it as Bomething
that really enters the soul with believing ; but John refers the idea of
^ al&vios to the present, Paul only to the future, although both
substantially agree in the recognition of the divine life founded in
faith, which bears in it the germ of a future higher development, antici
pates the future, and contains it in itself as In bud.
526 THE INTEKMEDIATE STATE.
consciously developed by him, since the thought of the resur
rection and everlasting life were in his mind so closely con
nected, that he would be induced to leave the interval between
the death of believers and their resurrection as an empty
space. But, in the Epistle to the Komans, Paul expressly
makes this distinction between the soul and the body, that
the latter will die, and be given up to death on account of
sin, the germ of which it carries in itself, but the former will
be alive, exalted above death, so that it will have no power
over them; accordingly, their life will be exposed to no
repression or destruction, but be in a state of progressive
development, never again to be interrupted by death. And
the conclusion which we may draw from this single passage,
is confirmed by those passages in the later Pauline epistles,
which intimate that higher degrees of communion with Christ
and of happiness are immediately consequent on death. The
admission of this fact is by no means contradicted by his
representing that the last and greatest result in the consum
mation of the kingdom of God, will proceed, not from its
natural spontaneous development, but from without by the
immediate event of Christ's Trapowia ; as, in the same
manner, the facts of the appearance of the Son of God in
humanity, redemption, and regeneration, though they are not
deduced from a preceding development, and constitute a per
fectly new era in the spiritual life, are far from excluding,
but rather presuppose, an antecedent preparatory develop
ment. Now, the later epistles of Paul contain such passages,
in which he expresses most decidedly the hope of a higher
development immediately consequent on death, of a divine
life of blessedness in more complete communion with Christ ;
Philip, i. 22, 23. We cannot in truth perceive how Paul,
if he supposed the second coming of Christ and the resurrec
tion to be events so very near, could say, that he " desired to
depart and to be with Christ which was far better," in case he
placed the salutary consequences of death only in something
negative — in freedom from the toils and conflicts of earthly
life, under which, as he so often declared, he experienced so
much more intensely the blessed effects of the gospel on his
own soul, — and had not contemplated a higher kind of com
munion with Christ, a higher development of the life which
was rooted in that communion as a consequence of death.
THE INTERMEDIATE STATE. 527
Must not a man of Paul's flaming zeal and devoted activity
have preferred such a life of conflict for the kingdom of
Christ, to a slumbering and dreaming existence or a life of
shadows? In 2 Tim. iv. 18, he also describes an entrance
into the kingdom of Christ as immediately following death ;
though this last passage is not so decisive, as the interpreta
tion in this point of view may be disputed.1
It may perhaps be thought2 that a progress on this subject
in the development of Christian knowledge took place in
Paul's mind. As long as he expected the second coming of
Christ and the final resurrection as near at hand, he had
little occasion to separate from one another the ideas of an
eternal life after death and of a resurrection; and, in ac
cordance with the Jewish habits of thinking, he blended
them together in a manner that led to the idea of a certain
sleep of the soul after death. But when, by the course of
events and the signs of the times, he had learned to form
clearer notions of the future, and when he was induced
to think that the last decisive epoch was not so near (as
appears from his later epistles), the idea of a higher condi
tion of happiness beginning immediately after death must
have developed itself in his mind, under the illumination of
the divine Spirit, from the consciousness of the divine life as
exalted above death, and as destined to perpetual progression,
and from the consciousness of unbroken communion with the
Redeemer as the divine fountain of life. The illumination of
the apostles' minds by the Holy Spirit was surely not com
pleted at once; but was the operation of a higher power
possessing a creative fertility, under whose influences their
Christian knowledge and thinking progressively developed,
by means of higher revelations which were not violently
forced upon them, but coalesced in a natural manner with
their psychological development, as we have seen in the
example of Peter; ante, p. 72. This might be the case
with Paul ; and it might happen that he was led to a more
perfect understanding of the truth exactly at that point
of time when it was required for his own religious necessities
1 The remarks by Weizel of Tubingen, in his essay on the original
Christian doctrine of Immortality, in the Studien und Kritiken, 1834,
Part iv., have not occasioned any alteration in my views on this subject.
2 This seems to be the view taken by Usteri.
528 PAUL'S PKOGRESSIVE KNOWLEDGE.
and those of future generations. But it is against this sup
position that, in the fifteenth chapter of the First Epistle
to the Corinthians, he expresses himself on death and the
resurrection, in the same manner as in the First Epistle
to the Thessalonians, and yet we find in the Second Epistle
-to the Corinthians written some months later, a confident
expectation expressed, that a life of a higher kind in com
munion with Christ would immediately succeed the dissolu
tion of earthly existence ; for it is impossible to understand
2 Cor. v. 6 — 8 in a different sense; when Paul marks, as
correlative ideas on the one hand, the remaining in the
earthly body and being absent from the Lord (a want of that
higher immediate communion with him which would belong
to an existence in the other world), on the standing-point of
faith; and, on the other hand, the departure from earthly
life, and being admitted to the immediate presence of the
Lord, and to an intimate communion with him no longer
concealed under the veil of faith. How could he have
described what he longed for, as a departure from this
earthly life and being present with the Lord, if he intended
to describe that change which would arise from the Trapovaia
of Christ, from his coming to believers'? We also find in the
Second Epistle to the Corinthians, the same views presented
as in the Epistle to the Philippians; yet it is not probable
that in the few months between the time of his writing the
First and the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, such a
revolution had taken place in his mode of thinking on this
subject. From a comparison of the First and Second Epistle
to the Corinthians, we may therefore conclude that Paul,
even when, in his earlier statements respecting the resurrec
tion, he said nothing of the state of the souls of individual
believers in the interval between death and the resurrection,
still admitted the uninterrupted development of a higher life
after death, though he did not particularly bring it forward,
as he was accustomed to found all the hopes of believers on
the resurrection of Christ, and to connect them with the
doctrine of the resurrection; perhaps, also, he thought that
last great event so nigh, and was so constantly turning his
attention to it, that his mind was not directed towards the
other fact. But as he became aware that the period of the
consummation of the kingdom of God was not so nigh as he
END OP THE MEDIATORIAL KINGDOM. 529
had formerly anticipated, he was induced to bring forward
more distinctly a subject which had hitherto been kept in the
background.
Paul represents as the ultimate object of his hopes, the
complete victory of the kingdom of God over all the evil
which had hitherto prevented its realization, over everything
which checked and obscured the development of the divine
life. Believers, in their complete personality transformed and
placed beyond the reach of death, will perfectly reflect the
image of Christ, and be introduced into the perfect com
munion of his divine, holy, blessed, and unchangeable life.
The perfected kingdom of God will then blend itself har
moniously with all the other forms of divine manifestation
throughout his unbounded dominions. Inspired by the pro
spect of this last triumph of redemption, when sin with all
its consequences, death and all evil, shall be entirely over
come, with the certain knowledge of the victory already won
by Christ, the pledge of all that will follow, Paul exclaims
(1 Cor. xv. 55 — 58), "Where, Death, is now thy sting?
(Death has now lost its power to wound the redeemed from
sin, since they are already conscious of an eternal divine life.)
Where, Grave, is thy victory? (the victory which the kingdom
of death gained through sin.) But the sting of death is sin ;
that which causes the power of sin to be felt is the law.
(What the law could not do, which made us first feel the
power of sin in its whole extent, that Christ has done by
redeeming us from sin and thus from death.) God be thanked
who hath given us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ."
Inasmuch as the kingdom of Christ is a mediatorial dispen
sation, which maintains a conflict with the kingdom of evil
for a precise object, which is founded on the redemption
accomplished by him, and by which all that his redemption
involves in principle must be realized — the kingdom of
Christ in its peculiar form will come to an end, when it has
attained this object, when through the efficiency of the
glorified Christ, the kingdom of God has no more opposition
to encounter, and will need no longer a Redeemer and
Mediator. Then will God himself operate in an immediate
manner in those who through Christ have attained to perfect
communion with him, who are freed from everything that
VOL. I. M M
530 THE CONSUMMATION OP ALL THINGS.
opposed the divine operation in their souls, and transformed
into pure instruments of the divine glory. The mediatorial
kingdom of God will then merge into the immediatorial.
Such is the declaration of Paul in 1 Cor. xv. 27, 28. But if
we understand what is said in that passage of the universal
subjection and conquest of all the enemies of God's kingdom,
in the strictest sense of the words, it would follow, that
all subjective opposition to the will of God will then cease,
and that a perfect union of the will of the creature with that
of the Creator will universally prevail. This will necessarily
be the case, if we understand the words that " God may
be all in all," l in absolute universality ; for then it would
follow, that the kingdom of God is to be realized subjectively
in all rational creatures, and that nothing ungodlike will any
longer exist. Then would be fulfilled, in the most complete
sense, what Paul expresses in Rom. xi. 32. But though this
interpretation is in itself possible, and founded on the words,
still we are not justified by the connexion to understand the
expression in an unlimited sense. If that subjection were to
be understood as only objective and compulsory, it might be
affirmed that the enemies of God's kingdom will have no
more power to undertake anything against it, that they will
no longer be able to exert a disturbing influence on its
development. By the " all," Tratn, in whom God will be " all,"
TO. TTCIVTCI, we may understand merely believers, as in v. 22
by TraVref,2 those who enter by faith into communion with
Christ ; and it certainly appears from the connexion to be
Paul's design only to represent what belongs to the perfect
realization of Christ's work for believers. The words in
Philip, ii. 10, 11, may indeed be supposed to mean, that all
rational beings are to be subjected to the Redeemer as their
Lord, although this will not be accomplished with respect to
all in the same manner ; in some there may be a subjectively
internal free obedience, in others only what is outward and
compulsory, the obedience of impotence, which can effect
nothing against the kingdom of Christ. The question arises,
whether in the words " bow the knee in the name of Christ,
may be taken either as masculine or neuter.
2 If the emphasis be laid not on the ircwres, but on the eV T
that here everything proceeds from Christ, as on the other side from Adam.
THE CONSUMMATION OF ALL THINGS. 531
and confess that he is Lord to the glory of God," something
more is meant than a description of such forced outward
obedience, if we understand these words according to the
Pauline phraseology.1 The passage in Coloss. i. 20, we shall
interpret in the simplest and most natural manner, if we can
admit such a reference to the reconciling and redeeming
work of Christ on the fallen spiritual world. And we can
then combine in one view the three passages, and interpret
them by a mutual comparison. A magnificent prospect is
thus presented of the final triumph of the work of redemp
tion, which was first opened to the mind of the great apostle
in the last stage of his Christian development, by means of
that love which impelled him to sacrifice himself for the
salvation of mankind. At all events, we find here only some
slight intimations, and we acknowledge the guidance of divine
wisdom, that in the records of revelation destined for such
various steps of religious development, no more light has
been communicated on this subject.
1 The doctrine of such a universal restitution would not stand in
contradiction to the doctrine of eternal punishment, as it appears in the
gospels ; for although those who are hardened in wickedness, left to the
consequences of their conduct, their merited fate, have to expect endless
unhappiness, yet a secret decree of the divine compassion is not neces
sarily excluded, by virtue of which, through the wisdom of God
revealing itself in the discipline of free agents, they will be led to a
free appropriation of redemption.
R. CLAY, HUNTER, BIIEA1> STRKLT HILL.
*#* The conclusion of this work, together with several
minor pieces by the same author, will be given in the
next volume.
Uniform with the STANDARD LIBRARY, ?;r/c<r 5i. (excepting " Cosmos," which is only 3s. 6</.),
BOHN S SCIENTIFIC LIBRARY.
1. THE CHESS PLAYER'S HAND-BOOK. BY H. STAUNTON, ESQ. Illus
trated with Diagrams.
2. LECTURES ON PAINTING, BY THE ROYAL ACADEMICIANS. With
Portraits, and an Introductory Essay, and Notes by R. WORNUJI, Esq.
3 & 4. HUMBOLDTS COSMOS ; OR, SKETCH OF A PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
of the Universe. Translated by E. C. OTTK. In 2 Vols., with line Portrait. lliis
new Edition (though published at so very low a price) is more complete tban any
which has preceded it. The Notes are much enlarged, and placed beneath the
text. Ilurnboldt's analytical summaries, and the passages hitherto suppressed,
are included; and new and comprehensive Indices subjoined.
5. STAUNTON'S CHESS PLAYERS COMPANION, COMPRISING A NEW
Treatise on' Odds, a Collection of Match Games, including that played with Moiis.
St. Amant, and a Selection of Original Problems.
6. HAND-BOOK OF GAMES, BY VARIOUS AMATEURS AND PROFESSORS:
comprising new and complete treatises on all the principal Games of chance, skill,
and maniuii dexterity. Illustrated by numerous Diagrams.
7. HUMBOLDTS NEW WORK: VIEWS OF NATURE, OR CONTEMPLATIONS
of the Sublime Phenomena of Creation. Translated by E. C. OTTE and II. G. BOHN.
With line coloured view of Chimhorazo, a facsimile letter from the author, transla
tions of the Latin, Spanish, and French quotations, a very complete index, &c. &c.
8. HUMBOLDTS COSMOS, VOL. 3.
Also, price 5s., uniform with the STANDARD LIBRARY,
BOHNS ANTIQUARIAN LIBRARY,
1. BEDE'S ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY, & THE ANGLO-SAXON CHRONICLE.
2. MALLETS NORTHERN ANTIQUITIES, BY BISHOP PERCY ; WITH AN
Abstract of the Eyrbiggia Saga, by SIR W ALTER SCOTT. .New edition, revised and
enlarged by J. A. BLACKWKLL.
3. WILLIAM OF MALMESBURY'S CHRONICLE OF THE KINGS OF ENGLAND.
4. SIX OLD ENGLISH CHRONICLES, VIZ., ASSER'S LIFE OF ALFRED, AND
the Chronicles of Ethehverd, Gildas, Nenuius, Geolfry of Moumouth, and Itichard
of Cirencester.
5. ELLIS'S EARLY ENGLISH METRICAL ROMANCES, REVISED BY J.
ORCHARD HALM w KI.L.. Complete in one vol., with splendid Illuminated Frontispiece.
6. CHRONICLES OF THE CRUSADERS; RICHARD OF DEVIZES. GEOFFREY
deVinsauf, Lord dc Jomville. Complete hi one volume, with a splendid Illumi
nated Frontispiece.
7. EARLY TRAVELS IN PALESTINE, WILLIBALD, S/EWULF, BENJAMIN OF
Tudela, Mandeville, La Bvocquiere, and Mauudrell. In one volume. H'itA Map.
8. BRAND'S POPULAR ANTIQUITIES OF ENGLAND, SCOTLAND, AND
Ireland, by Stii HKNRY ELMS. Vol. I.
9. ROGER OF WENDOVER'S FLOWERS OF HISTORY (FORMERLY ASCRIBED
to Matthew Paris.) Vol. 1.
10. BRAND'S POPULAR ANTIQUITIES. VOL. 2.
11. ROGER OF WENDOVER'S FLOWERS OF HISTORY. VOL. 2.
12. BRANDS POPULAR ANTIQUITIES. VOL. 3.
13. KEIGHTLEY'S FAIRY MYTHOLOGY. NEW EDITION, ENLARGED BY THE
Author. One Vol. Frontispiece by Georye Cruikshank,
Also, uniform with the STANDARD LIBRARY, price 6*.,
BONN'S ECCLESIASTICAL LIBRARY,
1. EUSEBIUS1 ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY, CAREFULLY TRANSLATED FROM
the Greek, with illustrative Notes.
Also os (except Tkueydidet, JEichylns, Virgil, lloracr, and Cicero, which are 3*. 6</
BOHNS CLASSICAL LIBRARY.
I. HERODOTUS, A NEW AND L
CAKY. M.A. d
2&3. THUCYDI
4. PLATO'S WO
crates, Onto
5. LIVY'S HISTC
6. PLATO'S WO
Critiiis, will
7. LIVY'S HISTC
8. SOPHOCLES
9. /ESCHYLUS,
10. ARISTOTLE
K\amm:itio
II. LIVY'S HIST
12. EURIPIDES,
13. VIRGIL BY
With Notes
14. EURIPIDES-
15. HORACE.
With Notes
16. ARISTOTLE
lessor (it t\
17. CICERO'S
cloxus, &C.
18. PLATO'S W
contHtning
Cratylus, H
19. LIVY'S HIST
20. C/ESAR, C
^|)illl S-ll \V
21. HOMERS II
22. HOMER'S O
uud Mice, '
1 to 8. LODGE S
9. CRUIKSHAN
in/A fit) //.
10. PICKE ING
11. KITTO'S S
12. WHITES
W M . .1 A K I
41) hi it hi i/
13. RICHARDS
DK. WHIG
r>3»
Also*
Of Political, Con
University of Toronto
Library
DO NOT
REMOVE
THE
CARD
FROM
THIS
POCKET
Acme Library Card Pocket
LOWE-MARTIN CO. LIMITED
Live Music
Archive
Librivox
Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland
Museum of Art
Internet
Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American
Libraries
TV News
Understanding
9/11